Skip to main content

Full text of "Lower Canada jurist = Collection de décisions du Bas-Canada [microform]"

See other formats


s^: 







' t/. ■ ^ 



TMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 





Sdences 
Corporation 



filiM 



. I" I ■• 



23 WEST MAIN STREET 

Webster, M.Y. msso 

(716)872-4503 



-t^^Sy^r 



1L.1 '^^- 



'^B0 Mi ^^ 

4o^ 



0>^ 



A 



CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 



.■ \ 



-f 



CIHM/IClVIH 
Collection de 
microfiches. 



J-t wv 




'>^.; 



Cajiadnan InstitutO/for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 



/' 







w 



y 

Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques 



The Instit4te has attempted to obta^p the best original 
copy available for filming. FMtures of this copy which 
may be bibliographically uflique, which may alter any 
of the images in the reproduction; or which may 
significantly change the usual method of filming, are 
checked below. 



/ 



□ Coloured covers/ 
Cou«terture fie couleur ^ 

□ Covers damaged/ 
Couverture endommagte 

□ Covets restored and/or lamiiCitad/ 
Couverture restaurte et/ou pelliculAe 



r~~~| Cover title niissing/ 



titre de couverture nianque 



□ Coloured maps/ " 

Cartas gfograirtiiques en oouleur 

* ■ 

n Coloured ink (i.e. other,fthan bliie or Mack)/ 
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que Meue ou noire) 

□ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
Planches et/ou illustrations enjouleur 



□ 



r- 



Bound with pther miterial/ ' 
Relit avec d'autres doiMments 



mTi|ht binding may causa shadows or distortion 
along interior margin/ 

La reiiure ferrte peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
distoraionle long de la marge intlrieure 

□ Blank leaves added during restoration may appear 
within the text Whenever possible, these have 
been omitted from filming/ 
II se>eut qua certaines pagts blanches ajouties 
tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
mais, Iprsque cela itait'poesible. oes pages n'ont 
pasiht filmtes. 



'A' 



\ 



^-t'lnstitut a microfilm* le meHleur exempleire qb'il 
"^ fill a M pouible de se procurer. Les details de cet 
exempleire qui sont peut-Atrf, uniques du point de vue 
. bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image 
reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger-une modification 
. dans la mithode normale de^lmage sont indiqufa 
ci-dessous. 



□ Coloured pages/ \ 

Pages de couleur , 7" 

□ Rages damaged/ 
Pages endommagtes 

□ PkgH restored aifd/or laminated/ 
Pages restaurtes et/ouiiellicul4es 

r~Jl Pages diiBdIaured. stained or foxed/ 
LlJ Pages dteolorles, tacheties ou piqu^ 

□ Pages detached/ 
Pages ditachias \ ' 

aShowthrough/ 
TraiSparance 

□ Quality of print varies/ 
Qualiti inlgale de I'impression. 

|- ^ I Continuous pagination/ .*^ 
I ' I Pagination continue 

□ Includes index(es)/ 
Comprand un (des) index 



Title on header taken from:/ 
Le titre de I'en-tlte provient: 

Title page of issue/ 

Page de titre de la livraisoh 



n 



r~~| Caption of issue/ 



D 



Titre de dipart de la livraifon 

Masthead/ 

Ginirkilie (piriodkiues) de la livraison 



i 



\ 



" 1' 

Thisi 
'Cede 


AdcHtional comments:/ Various pagings. There are 

tem is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
icument eit film* au.taux da rWuction indiqui cindessous. 


some 
a des 


creases in ih 
plis dans' le' 


e middle of pages. , 
milieu des pages. 

• 
4;, 


^ .' 


■' ;\. 




# .' 


10X 14X 18X ax 26X 


1 30X 




/ ■ 




I . 


















j,^.«£! 


»*■' 


/ 








\ 






^^^ 






-/ 


V ., 


'—I 


















■^-r 




y 








\ 










> 


/ ■ ■ 


« -*r- 


:?■■:■■ . ■ - 


12X 


"" .;i«'.4".'- 


18X 

V 


■ ^ 


20X 24X \ 28X 


32X 







■ ^ f: 




K 




^■' ■■■-•;- 


V' 



r-.. 



il 
I 

VIM 

m 



I I 

32 



f 



Th« copy lllmvd bar* has baan raproducad thanks 
tptha gaharosity of : , 

\ / Lam Library 
V University of Hestern Ontario 

Tha imagas appaaring hara aratha baat quality 
• possibia considaring tha condition and iagibility 
of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha 
filming contract spacif icatlona. 



Original copiaa in printad papar eovara ara fllmad 
baginning with tt«a front covar and andingim ' 
tha last paga with a prihta^ or.illustratad impraa- 
sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata.' All 
othar original copies mn filmad baginning on tha 
first paga with a printad or illustratad impras* 
sion. and andihg on tha laat paga with a printad 
or illustratad imprassion. 



Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha 
shall contain tha symbol "-^^ (moaning "CON- 
TINUED"), or tha symbol V. (ifiaaning "END"). 
whiclti|ivar applias. 

HMaps. platas. charts, ate., may ba filmad at 
dlffar^t raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba 
antiraiy included in oha axposura ara filmad 
beginning in tha uppar laft hand eomar. laft to 

, right and top to bottom, as many frames ss . 
required. The following diagrams illustrate the 

. method: 



1 







■? 


■ -f , - 


'■>>.. 


1 


2 


,.1 ' ' . 



\ 



L'exempiaire film4 fut reproduit grlce i la 
g4n4rositA de: 



LaM Library 

University of Hestern Ontario 



Les images suivantas ont «ti raproduitas avac le 
plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at / 
de la netteta de I'exemplaira film*, at %n 
conformita avac las conditions du controt da 
filmaga. 

^ Lee ekemplairas originsux dont le couverture^an 
papier eet ImprimAe sent fiimis en commen^iint 
per le premier plax at an tarminant soit par ia 
darniare page qui cOrnporte une emprainte/ 
d'impression ou dlMustration. soit par ie sacond 
plat, salon le cas. Tout les autres exempisires 
originaux sent fllmas aii eommen^ent pane 
pramlAre pege qui eomporte une empreinte 
d'impreasion pu d'illustration at an termijiiwf^t per 
la darniare pege qui eomporte une telle 
empreinte. 

Un dee symboles suivants spparattra si^r la 
derniare image de cheque microfiche, deion le 
ces: ie symbols ^»>'signifia "A SUIVR^". la 
symboia ▼ signifie "FIN". 

Las cartes. plencKes. tebleaux. etc., piuvent Atre 
fiimas a des taux de riductidn diffarants. 
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
reproduit en un soul clicha. il est filma i pantir 
de i'angle suparieur gauche, de gauche a droite, 
et de heut en bas. en prenant la nombra 
d'images nacesseire. Les diagrammas suiyants 
illustrant la mathode. 




. 




'N. 



f >^ 



X 




■'%■ 




■'I 



■ • j.^ tt C jp f fcr- T 1 1- vdr •- -rt -TT^ — 



f 



I . ; 



.y . 



XHB 



'OWER CANADA 



\ ' 



Surist, 



V 



'. \ 



COLLECTION DE DECISIONS 



DO 



BAS-OANADA. 



^'. 






4| 

•■vj 



f 






\ / 



JOHN a ABOeiBALD, M. A., B.O.L. 

" J- 8. BDCHAN, B.O.L 



SDMOiJD LARKAU, EOJ.. 



0' 



VOL. XXX. 



%' 



' ittmrtwal: ^ 

fmfTED AND PUBLISHED BY JOHN LOVBLL 

1686. 






& SON. 



\ 



\ ' 








f * 


Alia 


\ Amb 
\ Arch 


Bean 


^Beau 


Bliin 


Brod 


^ •- BrJ>w 


^s!^Brc(Ul 


iBiirrc 


iCadu 


,, Cinj 


' ' 'f\Cbei^ 


■ rs"T 


'M 


, Oorif 


Cow 


Oox 


p.iig 


/Dech 


^ De M 


/Dear^i 


/ Doric 
i Dick 


DOn 


Doug 


Dowi 


Doyo 


Diidl 


Dum( 


D«pu 


Dupli 


Eran 


) . Filial 


' ' Gilm 


Olalo 


Gregc 


1 ,Ouea 


/ . H*™' 


' . ■•'■'.^- 


■ '* ■ ■ \ 




\ / 


.'".;_VJ' -.■',.« 


-r 






> 



^*M. 



/ INDEX 

TO CASKS REPORTBD IN THE THIRTIETH VOLUME 






or THI 



LOWER CANADA JURIST; 



\' 



1} 



\0(iei^ 



Colli 



Paoi 

AlUrd V8. The Pyish of Sr. Jenn Baptiste de Rolf ton tknd, Ptasonneault, T. 8 36 

AmbauUand Fi/her..... \.. /.;, .,;. 133 

Arcb«mbauU and Blumhart, add^Boul6 y<^, .t 51 

Bcardaell vt The Oitj of Montrealv^ .y.^. ,......., 359 

Beaudryet vir. va. Boucberie .v, .y{L. ..\ 320 

BUincbard and°theOanl^aaPire lanunaaif Go...^....,. .....*...■ 165 

Brodeut T8. Rodgera...... .........JL. ., 2 

^ unet tnA The Pharmaceutical A^ociation of the Province of Quebec 47 ' 

BrWne Ts. Brown^.,... ....*.... ; ,i. 264 

X\Broiiillard te. Cot6 269 

|Burraugh« i<. Barron. ^ J^ 80. 

lOadoftand Ouimet ,j^. 256 * 

,1 Oin^te «/ a/, ri. The Ooaticook Ootton Co .", 135 

eyjsi al. ^nd Brunet, and Obauveau, Contestant :.......„. 214 

itin TB. Archambault .'...„ , .*. 237 

lifHontreal vs. Dorion k Morrison, OppoSant h 23 

iitajkn^ Anderson ,. , ;■. , 244 

C/orlstin^ vs. Lizotte , , 244 

Courrille find Ledilc ...» , 316 

Cox and Turner ei al ^..> .-.., 283 

p.iigneau & Levesque „...; , 188 

/bechene «< a/, and Pairbairn «(<('{., ck^ua/^ a 48, 227 

• De M^ntigny vs. | m\isetal , ?. , 299 

^Pevjinand Bibaud... •;,,/. ..,..,'. loi 

Dorion and Oro^iey. .s..^ ........'., ...»,....; i f .....j 65 

Dick vs. The Canada Jute Co., and E. Contra....,,.... , 1^5 

D'Oraonn«ns vs. Christin ...\......'. ......' ...;» 9 

Dougall v^. Brunand Rousseau «« ^ui;.; Opposant... >. „ ; ,. 24 

Downie va, Francis ;(...+ \ ..,..; .'..4^,<, 23^ 

Doyon v». Stewart .-..v. ./.Lt. .'( 260 

Dudley ai^td Darling...., „. .*l 309 

Dumontei vs. Dumontet !.,..„... .., 240 

Dopuis vk. Rieutord .-....,.. 99 

Duplessii vs. Dufault *. .'^.. ........................ ..^ ^5. 

Evans ajid Monnett(\ ^ ...K. JL,.... 204 

Filiatraullt an^ Prieur ..:..... ., .....^^Ij^,,..... 246 

Oilman Vs. Campbell etal. et qual 1...... .'. .M^Mi'f...... 49 

Olalon et al. and Fairbairn. .....i ...,„ (See 48 a^ 227Y. 323 

Gregoire et al. and Oregoire »t vir.,.. .'...,.../ ....;. 286 

•Queat and Douglas ^i^. ;......... 211 

Hamilton Powder Co. and Lambe, «« qual...;\,... L.T..,, 13 



\, 



* 



\^ 



'I 1 



\^ 



It 



IKDBX 






iv i: 



,*iJ 



Kfnnedy and TheEichnnge B«nkorCM»d4 2^ 

L» Banque VilleMaric nnd Vlgerud RobiUllI* ii al., Coiiieii«nu! '.'.. "^ 143 

Ubelle T8. Martia ; _^^ ."'i'^ '"V" '" 

La Corporation de la Paroisie de8t. TelMphoWTi. Marleau. , "* T 349 

La Corporauon dii Comte d'Yaraaika and Durocbcr 316 

Laflurome vg. Th« Mail Priming Oo ' „, 

Lavalke »«, Paul ■ '"( ;" '' ' 



Le Hlaiic rtal.^ v*. Kciiiiparlant ....,; • ' ' ' ^" 

Luaaier VB. Cha>otb ;, 

MacDougrfll et «(/. and DcQiers. '.. .' 

McDunnId ^/ kV, tg. Dodd. .'... "■ 

McOibbon and ficdard , 

Mc(iuiin rs. 'FIcichrr 

McOreevy ami Scnccyil . ..,_ -'" 

McSbane and Uyruii ,'..,..'. '' ' l ' 

McWillie vg. Ooudron ./ -i ......!....!...."!." 

Muisonueuve vg. CampoHii 

Menard vaj, Gravel, « tju'i/ ,"'' 

Millet »«. Millot fl al.... i.^''.'Z^^^'Z[^^^[[[^^^l ' 328 

Monette and La SocK-t6 de St. Jean Baptigte de Valleyfield.. " ijo 

Moore vg. Butters....': ; , /. ' "' "" 

Hongeau vg. Dubuc I ,,. 

a 



m 

207 

IOC 
108 
, Ot> 
281 
243 
121 
100 
44 
277 



^orin vs. Langloig, and Chapleau et vir., and Morin/ConUitanU. 272 

Nordheimer */ al. and Leclaire « a/....., .' ;: 333 

^mandeou and, McDonnell, Mjua/..... .....""!!......""..........". 120 

tforlnwood and BoHowraan..... .v.... .->■» 



O'Keefe tt dr., and Desjardini.. 
Ouimewvg. Menard 



21 

156 
297 
224 
185 



103 

•} ••— .; ^ 280 

^_ il.. I , ,,. \ 3Qg 

Pillow and The Recor4erVCourt of Montreal abd tbe Oltv of Montreal, M.E 1 

Pleau vg. Tbe Oity and District Savings Bank . """ 157 

Primeau vs. Ou6nn.... ..., 

Prud'bomnie vs. Scott et al.... 

Robs vg. Fontaine 

Royal and Lajeunesse 

Tbe Canada Jute Co. vs. Dick 

Tbe Canadian Pacific R. R. Co. and Ooyette...."!..^..!. /"///// /.".[]"."."//.y.l"//.'""*'/^^^ 207 

The Central Vermont Railway Company and tbe Town of SytobW."............ ........ 122 

Tbe City of Montreal vs. Dorlon and Morrison, Opposant. ....tP?! 23 

Tbe City and District Savings' Bank and tbe Jacqaes OartierBank . . ... 106 

Tbe Central Vermont Railroad and. Lareau! ^ 231 

Tbe Bxcbange Bank of Canada vs. Qault ....!.."!!!!.....7....".........;.........!:... 269 

Tbe Bxcbange Bank T8..flwlily and Chaplin, ConteaUnt...... ......."!!!!..'.........'.... 270 

Thfe ExchapgrBwk of Canada vs. The Montreal City and Diitrict Savings Bank 86 

The Exchange Bank of Canada and The Queen , 194 

Tbe Great Northwest^ra Telegraph Co. and Archambanlt .....;..."!......... 2il 

The Harbor Commissioners of Montreal and Hub and the Miasiasippi and Dominion 

Steamship Company.. , jj^ 

The Ontario Car Co. vs. Tbe Quebe* Central Railway Co. and The CanadiM Pacific 

Railway Co., T. 8 t. .' , . 245 

Thornton and Trudel. » • ••• 



202 



The Mayor, Aldermen and CiUzens of the City of Montreal vs. Doolan........". ".....!... 41 

The SiBcennes-MtNaughton Line vs. Bangs ,^.. 296 

The Trust and L6an Co. of Canada and And?grave and Panneton" OpposanI]!."""!."! 293 

Vallce «« jua/. vs; Leroux .....; , 271 

Vennorand the Life Assurance Association of Scotland.... !!!.!..............."....! 303 

Vinet vs. Toupin ..... .>: 267 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1885. 



I 



COUJtT OF yUEEN S BKNCII, 186B. 

(appeal DIDt.) 
MONTREAL, 27tu JAtfOARY, 1889. 
PrewM :-Don.oN, C. J., Bak^ay, CaoeB ani» I'aby, J.J. 

JOH.V A. PILLOW IT At. 

J {Ptiitiomr* in Court btlow) 

Afpcllanti; 
A.VD > 

RECORDERS COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL 

, (^^"'dunl in Court btlow >, 

RCSFONDINT; 
AKD ' 

THE CITY OF .\IO.VTREAL 

(■ViienCauuin Court Ittow)^ 

THE HONORABLE J. A. MOUSSEAU, 
* i.-Attorn«y.(Jentral for th$ Province o/Quebte,) 

ISTlHTiNAJIT IN CoUBT BILOW 

IhLO:-,!. That legislation by the Proline of Quebec auti.o.zing «.e City Council of 
Montreal to make by-law. for the prevention and auppression of nuiZce U 
not ^ltravne,ot the .aid legislature, notwlth.taading that the PaSe"; If 
. ^'»°»<'««'"'»'««cl'»i»e right to make law. concerning CrimJ^aanlr 

withrAe'PrX '^^ ""• ^- ""''' '•"""'^ '° ""'"•"="'•» '-"'""0- 

The petitioners arc morch^ts and manufacturer., and operate liirge works in 

thcCtty of Mo„tr..I for the manufacture of iron ore into nuils, bolt' and other 

rfcles of commerce The.r trnde invol.es the use of coal, whiefe is'burned in 

constderable quantities, and an information has been lodged ajgl^ them before 

the Reeorder-'s Court of tj. City of Montreal. chan,i.g'that ^ 1^^^^^^ 

heirmanun.etory- * V* * "<Jid send forth smote in IhquanJtil 

«s^to^be a nuisance, be.n- then and there hurtful to^ tl.e^ public health and. 

The information is framed under a by-law, 130 of the City of JHontrear 
in virtue-"''" "^ '^ "" " ^^'^ "^ ^'^"'"'■^' ^®^^' ""'*'''* ^-''"' »? ^^ 

Fir.tly.-Of an Act of the Legislature of Quebec, passed in 1874 (37 ?£o 
cap.^1. sec. 123, sub. sees, land 2), which. amon« otheVthings, authori.es 
the City Council t. make by-laws, "for (amongst other t^alJC-^^ 

Sewndly-Of an Act passed in 1880 (42 and 43 i^iq, cap! 63 sec 34 
amending t^e Act of 1874), being an Act "for \u ak^Jn^eJE of 'nuLc^ 
^yt^nS pubhc health or sa/et, in the said cityj.and ^. jpunMm-^,. ^^ 
per^n, commUtvng, or causing, or pgrmitting the 8ame:to ^ committed." 

■-> A^Vl. '.;: Jan. Vol., 30^1. ' I 



\ 



Jl^' 







\ 



...>, 



i 



^^ 



COURT OF QUEENS BKNCJI. 1885. 



J. A. Pillow The moliTcii of tlio ju<l;;nicnt in the Huperlor Court, which wore unmiHiiomljr 
.»ai conflruicd in Rppvai, were oi follown ; — 
lUcorJtfi ConNiiKtrinn thnt to U•J^i^lIlt« upon iho Huhji'Ct mnfk>r of tlie AcU 37 Vio. onp. 
•Cliy of »fiiit.OI, an(142 imd 43 Vlo. cup. B3, i»witiiin the conipctVoy ami juriiidictioii of tho 
•nd Provincial fiCginUture «cco>ding to tho diMtribution of Ic^inlativo pywcri bclwocn 
Thfl (Jlijr of the Parliaiuoiit of Cunuda mid tiio ProvittoinI Louixluture made Itjr «i'Oiron» VI 
*'"iind*' nnJ 92 of the B. N. Act, 1K»7, rcupictivciy, mid thnt «»ld Act and logiMution. 
The Hon. „„ ii,c ,„nttcr ih»rcof are not nhttt virm of tlH) »a»d Provinctnt Lc^injuturo, h^ 
iiifi; Actfl pnHiwd und IcgiHlationa in relation to *' Municipul ln^tj;ullonl| and not 
to "Criniinal Law" within the nicuniii;; itnd intent of miid miction 01 ; 

And ouHHidcring that Huid legislation in not of the natiiru or oharnotcr of 
Criininid Law nor for the RiipprcsHion or puiiiithnicii|^of crime in tho-acnco 
ond intent of Huh. roc. 27, of said bco. 91, 'but racrdy to protect tho citiicns of 
Montreal from the m mxiat, hurt, and nnnoyanco of olTu^iccs not criuiinal in 
their nature ond not wjtliin the purview Olid intention oTmiidl No." 27, Hco. 01 ; 

Connidoring, thcrefoife, that tlio by-law No. 130 coniplaino<l of by tho peti- 
lirtncr* as being ultm \'lrt» pf tho mit en e.au»r, tho City of Montreal is, not 
ultni fln» of the said clly, duly incorporated as a niunioifVaj institution uuii was 
;'" egally paused in. virtue of the Statutes 37 and 42 ond 43 Vio. of the provincial 
^Legislature, I, the undersigned judge, do ({uash the writ taken in this ouuhc und ' 
dismiss wiid |Ktition with cohts, 

MaimiiHtrr, Ilnlchinton «fc }ycir, otttirnoys for appellants. 

Hover JRny, ottorney for respondent. 

,/. L. Aithti)iil>t/vlt, nttoiney for the AttorneyiOencrnl. , 



■ — ^■■ 






COUR DK CIRCUIT, 1B85. ^ v 

ST. HYAUlJfTHK, a FfiyR'KR 1885. 

Cornm SiCOXTB, J. .' 

Brodtiir v». lingvra et vir et Rodgcri et vir, Oppomnt. 

Jeoi :— Quo le lucatairc ne peut renoncet aulpriVili'ge conf6ri par rartJclcrSSG du C. P. U. 
relatWemcDi uux meublcrdcclitri-s tngaisiuables par la loi ; 
Que la clause du bail par laqiielle le preni'ur jaurait reaonc6 ii tul prlvlRge doit^ 
Ctre d^clarue nulle comme contraire ii I'brdrfl publiok -^ 

Per Cti'RiAH : — Lo dcmandour u tuit Haisir pur bref do 8ai8iG-.::;agerio,;toua 

les uieublcs des ddfendeurs, et dcniundo jugonicnt pourJ70^0(^ pour tci loyers 

Les meubles saisis coniprennent tojitt^ uicublcs on h {iosdcasioit dcsd^fondeui's 
et ccux niCmes quo la loi exeijiptt do la Buisio. I n^ 

!Lc8 d^fendeurs s'oppoeHm ^ eettc saisie', et iilvoquent I'artiole 55& dii Code do 
Proc^ure, deniandent qu'il soit d^clar^ que la saisie prat iqa<S6 par lo deinan- 
dcur est illi^gale ; k ce que le podlo d& euisinflj, vune.>oouchctte^^n lit h spring, 
une paillasse, un lit de plume, un mutelaa, six taies d'ot%ill^, uae tublo et six 
chdiscfl, soicnt distraits de la saisie pratiqu^o en cetto cuu^. 

Le dcmandeur contcste la deiiiandc foite par 1-3 d<Sfenueurs etali^guo au sou- 
tien de ses proc^dea do paisie, que pur le bail fait cutre les parties, les d<$fco- 



[' 



J^. 



IflduC. P.O. 



"+-4i 



CpUR DE CIROOIT, 1886. 



3 



Cc ncldcnt «.ul6.o Uji qu,.,^n important, S tout point do vu«. No. n^ '"• ' 
port.judlcia.rc»„ocou^;„„„,»t,q„ej„,.,d^„j,j„„,jj, . U prcrti Jel^ • . 

un bail, „ o.t pa, con ra.r, A I'ordro puj^lic." U «oo„de ddclnrc, <■ que |„ clau«, 
.n^.«r«o dan, u„ b«.l p,.r)aq.,ollo lo l..«tw. renonoe .u bd.^Jflc L huZ ' 
K«n.nt.t do r.n«.iMMabili.. de „, .cubic, en favour do «,n localur. ..t llll 

> Dan, r«b«onco d-Unojuri«prud«nco ool„acrdo par do nombreu,' juReq,ent. il 
r»«^cc«nMe fa.re u„ oxa,..c„ do la question «,unn«., au.i c Jpla ;« ;;! 

Notre nrlicio 556 u'oat pa. do droit nouveau. II d^coalc do c. qui dtalt aloM " 

notro lo,. ,a„t .1 nu^on de I'Ordonuanco de 1C07, quo de no. S.atut 

ionovrarc^ttr " ""'T" '" '" ''^' "'" '" '"'" '"""'"^' "^ "'^ P^^ 
L'Ordonnauoo a trois .rtioloa aur la matiire. Art. 14. " Kn proc<5dant nar 
sai.ic-ox6cu.ion. .j laM au. «.i«i.,, uno vaoh., troi. brcbi. tTplu. ^ 
km6 au .U..S., un lit et I'habit dont il Hcra couvcrt." Art 16 " Lo. .ZZ 

Art. 19. Tou., Ie8 art.otes c.-do^us «eront observe. A peine do iVulli.d ot dom . 

maRca .„.drm«. en vor, lo ^atsi, ei lo «^8imntimntratftuU .ior ^ 

I^ Statut Rcrondu, ch«p. 85 .«>. 3, roproduiaantla loi an.drieure d^orc^ta d^ . 

njMavca.Jca exemption, accord.es auxddbitour,,etW.d„uu.^;^^^^ " . 

dispositions comme suit : j f».vB uan. nuit 

^ U Idgislatoro oontinuant le' langage" do" I'Ordonnancirji^lairoxcmDtlss'de 
saisie les chose, qu'elle 6num6rc ■\ »JiBpiaro oxcmptcs de 

tio!!''^:;';riitii^'^''"""'^'*^^^^^ 

xnliotr ' JW """ "P"'"'"" P'"" ^""P'l"". P""" ""Punitive pour 

,o,p|.quer.avoJoi.t^lf„icntionduldj;islateur. L'Ordonnaoce cUsait • << ^^ra V ^ 

luis8<S aux personne. saihio.." Lefcodeditu - °''","°"- «^™ 

" II doit filre lais?^ au dtfbiteur." 

II no pout y avoir le moindre doute sur la nature de ccs disroHition* VUn. »« * ' -- 

Z^^'"'''^'-'^'^"^^^^^- On neporaitsCTpro^ i : ' 

tion Autrement, la loi eut 6i6 chose inutile, Icttro aorto ^ 

i. historique de cetto legislation le d^moDtro 

nullUn^'"'* " '^""*^' " ^^"•«^™'«»»«'". q»« »« Roi d«clar.\la prohibition 4a 
nuU^ mtoe pour ses propros deoiers,. Cos e«,n,ption. no sol jamai dTmt 
nu^es mais au contrairo, lo l^gislateur, Roi ou peuple, les nugniXnt ,^L^2 
a jusiioe ddmontre que I'ordre, la eiviiisation sout Ipi cette Z^Z.'^ZZl 
toujour, de. pauvre., mail, le rfile de la loi e.t d'entraver la multiSeation de^ 
^u.r..n^leurd.gradaUon.bsolu,onlcsd.^^^^^^^^ 



COUR DB CIRCUIT, 1S86. . 



^ 



Brodrur P*"*' «>*»»«"'' ^« *•"* «*• "• '"''''* WgUUtcur iiVt fiprlrod Bfto prtoUloh. Sa 

w. d4flinM M( eipr««». " Ildolt •!» UJw^ a« mUI," Ullot cho««i qtl'irdnttm.^re. 

lloinrii ft Tir j,^^^ ,uiT,nt ctprlme AicnUnient la ix)nf<Jo du Id^iilalciir : "On na pcul 

Uoilgrr. fll „„„ pim ,„|^ir i„ livrcn do oompl«»," «t Jann I' Art. BBa qui >iiit : '' Sont auwl 

" inxaUiMtblcM, lo. lea Ttfica aaoi^a ot cffota aorTant au-oulle rcllgUu* ; 2o. lea 

providiona al|inentnire» ai1jiip<<on par in ju»4ioo ; ^. lot •oitimcii at^hjota donniin 

. »ou« In condition d'in^aittijaabiTitA,'! etc. ^ 

Ijfi prohibition eat done oxprowac ot pofltlre. \ . 

li'Art. 14 du Co^do Cl»ll, a d^tcrmlnd in Talour, et lea oonMJqucno*^ da tollo 
prnliibition . " Lea loU probibilitci^cniportent nullitd, quoiqu'eilo n'yaoit pn» 
prononcde." * Art. IB. "La diupoHition qui preacril qu'uno ohoa« «ern fuito enb 
oblijfntoirc." . w. ' , ' 

Ainal, rhuii«aior qui aaUit- lea ohonoa que la lol lul defend do aniHir.^iole h 
lottro oomnie IVprit da In loi. D'apr*« rOrdononnoo do 10«7, i] t-nt pnaaibkii^c 
— . dnnimnpw entcra la pnjtje. Piir uolt« Cmle, il eat ^gnb'mcnt pi^wrfbl^ de dok- 

nitigrn ct d'oniendo A la diiicr<Jtion du tribunal. Car I'Ordonnnnco de 16e¥, 
n'cut pna abolie nominutivcun-nt, inaiii soulcuuspt qunnd lo <>ode fuit do nouvcllo? 
dinpoHitionn, ct qunnt A oca dinpoxitiona aculomcnt. 

Ainai Hirot, ^crivnnt aoua I'enKpirlB du Code Nnpoldon, dit:-'' Cca diflWrontcir 
nullitia a'appliquont nusai dnna le nouveau droit, quoii^uc la loi nc lea eiprimo 
pan tcxtucllerocnt ; niuis Tordrj) ^lubli et In nuture'dea octca coniidirout niccaaoi- 
rciucnt ooninio dca iiullit<Si toutca Tiolationa ou conttaventiona nux formca intriii- 
8«^quC8 et anx riglea prcacriteaen oca matiiireB ; c'cat ainai qo'en aj)cn8^ la Cour 
do Dijon, en d<!oidnnt, par nrrit du IB pluviOa'e artl, qu'uno anicie-ex^ation 
est nullc, Hi ello n'e t pan ^eoord^o de tJJmoina, et quo cette tiullit^ pcutT^ pio- 
poscr pottHtr-prtmiiro foia en Appel : done ^tte eat r^ui^c abaoluo/' 

" Jo raisonncrnifl volnntiora ainai sur I'Art. BR2 du Code de Procedure, qui con- 
tiont aa nomenclature dca ohoscs •inanihissabloa ^ans lea nai»ici'-«x<Scut'ion8 : Jo 
dirni ((to'annuler la t^aisie do cea choacfl priviligi^ca, oat lo nicillcur nioyon do lc»- 
gnrantir doTa^iditi d'un crdanoior ou d'un huiasier,; jo d,irai9. encore que I'an- 
cicnne legislation ne laiaaait aueun donte aur ce point. Lea Ordonnanccs do 
Cl.arles VII, do Jrati9oia lor.„art. 29 ; l'<5dit de Charlca IX, de 1871, et I'Or- 
donnnnce du 16 mara 1B96, pronon9nient la nuintd de la saihio dea pbjcts 
qu'ellea avaicnt dAclaris insajsiaaobloa et ce inddpendamment d'autrea p^naliKS^. 
L:» derniire brdonniinoo civile, r^unianantcettcWgisUtion dana troia articles posi- 
tifs, exprinie^nussi lanuUit^ doa anisioa dca ohosea insaiaiaaable^, mSiaejwur no* 
proprea deniera, dit lo l^gislatcur."' 

Au teste, le Code de Pro«i6dure a ij^gW la obos* par une diap&aition ap<5oinlo 

aur la mitidre. 
— -£>lAt4/ 68t attttue comBte awit : • Lo aaiat pcut demandor la tullit^ do la 
gaiaie-exdcution, lo. pour iirformaliUJs dana la snisie, ou si quelques-uns dea effcts 
auiais sont excmpt^a auivant lea articlea 566, 557 et 558.'*^ 

Lfitexte edt cStr, priScis. Ainsi dana la aaiaie dont il '^N *"«• 'es effet» 
aaisia aoni d^clarla excmptff*' I'Art. 556. A moin8>i!«iwS raiaona pour agir 
eontrc la loi, la nuUit^ de la aaiaie doit 8tre propeHole. 

La aaiaisBant invoque pour faire mnin|oirif la aaiaie la d^olamuon faite ^r ' 



\ 



*'^' 



n^ 




COl^ DB ClBCUIT, im. 



-^-c 



A 



./,.. 



:( 



IH lo«.talrM d.at l« b-il,ii,«««, « qu'iU nit pourroot prdiwdr. .o. , mattR,, Brod.» 
qu. I.ur tenftr, I'.rtioU 560 d« Cod. d, Prortdur. (^iWU d« n.^;.„.d., Rog^"., „» 
auiquek il r«nono«nt an f«i«ur du MUnxt." . ' ,*<t 

■ C«»U •llfiul.lioo «.uld». d«u« q„«.t.o«, qul^ muoh^nl .ui'ohow. r«.'pl«/ S?" 
ImporUnU-.d. Ucyi^redchomme.. lo. U Ub.,M »b«>Iutd. Ihortm,; d. 
d.«powr d« .e« bi«n., d« .. per«o„„, 2o. t« oontrfll. d« I. .ooUU sar l«. action. 
dc« cit«j«n. don« rinidrfll doTo^dw Ota* U ohow publiqu.. 

L. IIM* est .o«ord<?« comme 1. prinoip. I. plu. Anorgique, lo plu. ferm. 3* 
U m,ll«,tlon ot du proRrt.. M.i. A c6t*-d, o. prlndp, II j . I'ordre «t li but 

Lo. iM^rAu uplf.«.l, permanent., do. »iomm«, «,iU procl.nK., .ont ^IJoW ' ' .' 
d«n. U WKi.U.|on. Ce.f %ul«i„n procdd.nt d.-l^njelligcn., .'up^riouro Z ' 
.dc-Und.,, h4;„«,„«,. . d.n. fu. le. temp,, pro«uI««< d„ ord<ini.noc..podr 
pjru«fcr l,on.mcdun.lWdreetl.ju.tice,etiWp<k,l.erde'tomber-« ' 
inMt"? "" ' ™J«*ri •*'•.««•"''«»•' d«n»«»di«>nWetU rwipeotdelai- i 

I.« lol d|» MoYgo, qui. par ae. pnnoipo., «.t le ©ode humwluire, iicMt I. 
droit d^oprcndro. » liberty ot te. bicn> eng.^. pour un. dettc. '" II rie doit 
pM ^»oir do pauvroB parmi voj^a." ^ 

SoIon^abolA lea dettoa et hit un nouveau partog. dc. h<JriUg«a, pour .rr«ter U 
ruinc .midro 5le I. aocid.^S par lapanvrct^i ot h acrvitudo. lioiue downu. mot 
tre«o du mond. a'effrajoit de li. n.i«^ro du citoyeo rgmain et de la aoHtude do« 
campagnca Llle vcut r^Jogir par a<* loia contre oe. cauw. de degradation, ot de 
la ddp„p„I„t.on^ Sea lo.. Irappent d'inf.mie le. cr<am,ieni qui OHeront'enlever 
Je. ...rtrumeutt d'agnauU^re^et le.lK«uf. parje que co. cho«,. lour ont dt6 tt.U 

La franco a procddi, dana aa ligUUtioD, non en diuHnuant lea objeta d<Jol«r<5a 
iifaaisiBgablea, niais'fn loa nuBinentant. , ; 

' . ■^'*^^ frM«iii*B ont toujour* tnaintonu cea Ipia reatriefivea et prolibi- 
tion. ; ellea les ont d<Jo!.r^o. .deajoia d-int^rflt g<Jp<Srt.I, ot^d'ordre public L'Eut 
rcprcsonl<5 par le Roi, d<Jelarait telle. saiaieaDulle., q«.nt A u propre dette 
Lea autre. p«y«^t procddU d'apr^s le« intmca principcs. */ 

La K<$publique de. Etata-Uni. . rcpou..<5 ectte tondiuee A k miadro et A la 
d<^grad.t.on. rMt^nt du d<Jpouillcn,ent du,d<biteur, par le. loi. comportant de' 
exemption, encore plua large, et plus abwluea. . . " 

Dana notre pny. nou. avoDS auiti le. mflm'c. Hpirayon., et notre Ifeialnture a 
conB.«m«ent pi^o..,^ 1. travail et le eitoyen centre la ^.^acit^ du S LT « 
contre I'lmpr^voj.nce ou l'incapacit<5 du dibiteun "eunoier, et 

Eu face, de ootte Ldgid.ture du monde, le. iudividu. n'ont jiLile droit de 

IZrT^ '"' 1 " ''"'"^^ P'"' •"«" ^"^ '" '<'•'«» de"^ „;: un 

::!:^tK.:^'""^*'"" ^«"'*''".-<i^p-^^ede. dctm^e. ^::^ - 

II y . dan. ce^te action univerwslle do. Boci6t6s, pour proUJger le. d^biteura 
eontr le. rigueub de. cr^ancier.. la promulgation la piL en Braise dlT 
.on«,ienco bomaine; qu.nt A r.ppr^i.tlon de I. choiN^qpouaeSl ol 



\.. 



'.*■- 







COUR DK CIRCUIT, 1885. 



>.-' 



i 



Ml 
' III 



Brodcur n'cBt I'an I'int^rdt porticulier d'uD honmc, d'une claaso que la loi a en Tue ; tnai> 
fiocen'et v'r''^'''' '^^ '°"^^ '" '^i^'^- ^"^ d^crdto un ordro do ohoscs opplioable dana tous 
pt Ics cas ; clle comniande impdricusonicnt & bcr offioicra de juatice de no pan noiair 
^^f' * tclii biena du t^bitcdr. Son ordre oat absolu, aa prohibition czplioito, poaitivo 
cnvcrs tnua et contrei toua. 
L'int^rCt f;4Sn^ral cat doublemcnt int(<rc»F^ k I'obi^crTution do I'Ordnnnance do 
j; la loi ; cnr ello cat dioK^o par dea conaiJifrationa do moralo et du bicn-Stre public. 

L'ordrc social conimande quo lo^ cito^cua ob<{iaaent et ao aoumcttont a l:i votont6 
" du lt5}!i!<lutcur. 

; Quand lo li^gialutcur ddort^to une prohibition, ct diote unodi^fonsc, d'uno ma- 

ni^rc pundrale, anna r^acrvcr lo droit nux pnrtioulicra d'y ddroger, conim^ il cat 
' / i'uit par L'articlo 556, la prohibition eat d'ordro public. 

Co qui est lo ciichct dii varactdre d'ordro public i}e cctte It^^islaturc, c'cst le 
I but qu'clle a^ropoae comnie lo point d<$purt. 

L^ * Ijo cnpitul, oui CHt lo cr^anoicr, n'cEt paa rcnomm^ pour aa charitd. Le d^bi- 

I ^ tcur, dunaaa ddtresse, accordje tout ce qui est doniand<$, aurtout quand il n'u paa 

I . , \i pnyor de suite. 

[ Ln loi ibtervicnt pour protigor lo capital ct lo travail, par une sage pr<5- 

Toyance, dictido par I'cxpi^r^ncc dcs tentpa. Le capital prdvenu fait an ghrantie 
d'apris cct avertisscuent dria loi. Lc truTuilleitr est aauvegardd centre son 
impr<5voyance. * . 

L'ordre public, rint<Srdt gdndral s'abritent sous ccs conditions, d'apr»s la jus- 
tie^ ct la charitd. 

AinKi, la loi dca homnicB, d'uccord aveo lu loi do Dieu, a pour but lo d^velop- 
pement moral et materiel de I'hnmanit^. Ello prohibc tout co qui conduit d, la 
diigradation et & ravilissement de l*homme. 

Cca prohibitions riont absolues, easentijellea, et deor^t^os dans l'iqt<$rdt de 
I'drdre ct du bicn-6tre g^D<^ral. 

Notre Art. li d^olare^que tout ce qui est fuit contraircmrnt^ la prohibition 
de lu loi est nul. Toute< violation A la loi est ane fuutc, qui ne pcut devenir 
chose justifiable au tranagresseur. La sanction judiciaire de tello convention 
Bcrait une autre violation dp la loi. ** 

Le principe de ces exemptions est lc regret de Thonimc, l'int<SrSt social, d'em- 
p^cher rhomme de se perdre dans la rais^re et I'oubli de'aa dignity. 

C'est d'aprea ces aspii-ations civilisatrices, que la socitft^, parlqnt par aes lois, 
decr^te nn ordre dc^choscs propre 4 empScher Thomme de desoendre au-dessous 
de la brute par la mis^re ct un d^uucmeqt absolu, et lo niptoxigA contre los 
demandes exag^r<Ses de aon cr^ancicr. 

La loi, que le cr^ancier connait, a ^t^ faite pour le prot^g^r contre ces mau- 
vaises tendances, en lui diaant ; preriez vos garantiea autrement. II n'a pas 
raison de maudire la loi. Mais li|i, repr^sentant le capital, doit Stre le premier 
d; respecter la loi. 

Quand il n'y aura plus de lois, sacr^nnce ura encore moins prot^g^e. 
Au fonds de la defense que lc cr^ancier oppose &Ja reclamation du locataire. il 
y a Tancicnne cause du ddsordre dandle monde. " Yous avcE le droit do d^aob^ir 



Ala.]©!.^' 



k 



'-Ki 



'>»Jt 



I'll DE 






-%•: 



CIRCUIT, 1885. 



vcntion d<4 Tautoritd iocialellEi l' 



Rodveriet 



ordontn'^'" ^ ^^"^ T*'' """'' '^f ""° '^" ™»»*'»»° '-^ '^'^^'^ P'o-^ulguo dc, Brodeur' 

W ; ;: LT" 7';' ' r^'''«-f' "^"^ <^- cho-» ndces,airesMa dLonce do 

. «n naH.r "^^ '^"' '""'■• ^^ '«"' «« Rui tona A r«vilis,e,„ont do 
"oramo par la in.«6re, est anti-social, an ti-ch ration. 

ment Z^^a T '""'"'""" ''^°""°" *'=» '^•5»"«»« »«>solue, du oouchor ot du v6tc- 
ZltuZL t '" "';"""'•%"'•' -T" *^^'™, que co.nu.0 loi d'ordr'o public. 

f d.> du, nl? '• '«/«f »J"tio, ot du m.l. Ello ro«trciat la iLto dos 

donnor 41 .nd.v.du un pouvoir plu. .rand que eeiui de la natiou. 

U«o coiui ae Pnete. Cctte n^cessit^S do vivro, motive I'intcr 



ctigdratian du droit de propri^t6, et fairo 

#1a 1a»_ jt.^^-j 



... '-, « """"o ,« uMgorauan au ai 

justice crrtro leurs int<Sifiw, on dehors do lour ^goisme 

• ..u^uT T """ '""!''''' "" ^'"^''"°- ^» degradution du pauvre est la 
ZJ ^ m^' '^° '^ *'"""P''"? ^««'^'"- E^ q«-t do« loU scut fait 
crirrr"; '■ ^ ''°°'^'^ »-^'« -^i*»K-s et ee, dLrdres, il y aurai ..u^ 
cr>cur Oe ddoVor que oos lois no son^ pas de, lois 4'ordre-publio. 

o^i; ZdZt't^ q- «|^ela loi ne s'appliquo pas ii un cas particJiier. Ello > 
n est p,.s ddorc<teo au profit d'un indiv du. d'uno ola«e. La riehe d'hier sera, la ^ 
pauvre d aujourd'hui. Lo preeopto es; g.„.ral. unlvorsel. envers ^cZ^^ - 
Cet e gdneraUcd est le oaehet do son o.raotore d'ordre pubUo ; ccnu,. sor^ut 
^sestcn^oes sontpn^uv. do runivorsjbili,^ des int^rfi^ qu'il protege. ^ ' : 
ddbit J « M •"«••"'. humanit^ire do la question sou^ev^e par le^ faits etics 
m1 f!, ""''• ^'^'^ "«'»«'"»«" "'^Ht toutefoisqu'uneoons^quencootun 

in dent deJaquesfon legale; car i} en e.st/ le eommentaire lo p Jrationel lo 

Notre Code par I'art. 13 d^oreto : " Oa no peut d^roger pas des eonventlon, 

Le droit Remain promulguait la n,S,„o doctrine par cette rdgle de droit • 

C cZl , p'' "* '^1' '^ ^' «"'*« '^^ ''«"« -^-- 8^^- Regie. 
Auss,. Contra legem fact, t^uid faeit quod lese prohibit." 49imo R^e C W ^ 

ag.r centre la lo. que de fairo ce quo la loi ddfeud' On a aueun ^^a'd rceou 

68 fa.t contre s^prohibitiori." " On trouve dan, Laurent uue disi;t la aul 

jud.c.ouse que comprehensive sur k port^o et les cons^quenl ^aTrtL I 

11 importe de fuire-rcmarquer que le Code Napoleon n'a pas de disoosition, 
,r.ci8e8comm.ocello«,dict.espar n6tre Art. U. NonobstantHos autZTle^^ 






Brodeujr 

Rogers ei Tir 

et 

Rodg«n| ct 

▼ir. 



8 



COUR DE CIRCUIT, 1885. 



"^^ 



cours oonsaorent la luifiiiie doctrine que cello ^nonc<)U dans notro article. Et 
voic^ commo Laurc'nt cypliq'ue la choao. (Vide Laurent, Vol. ler, Nos. 58 et 59), < 
Notre Art. 14, Re fait qu» r^p^ter la constitution de I'Empcreur qui ovait 
ddvelopp<< la r^gld peilr uliouz rozpliqucr (Vide Laurent, Vol. ler, Nos. 60 et 

62). • r 

Biret, dans son tm\6 des nnllite-i, apr^s avoir eitd la constitution de I'Empe- 
reur sur les prolivbitiono, njoute, page 3 Vol. 2, " Austti les plus cdldbres autcur» 
ont profusHe, neviine contra dicente, la nlootrine, que toutos prohibitions et d^- 
ponse dans Ion loii*, entruiuent la nullity de tout to qui so fuit d'uno mani^re con- 
traire k I'ordre quielloa prcscrivont, ou aux diapositions qu'elles ^tablisRcnt."^ 

Et parlunt de TAift. 59:! du Code de Procc-dure Napoleon, il dit Vol. 2, pngo 
162. <* Cos diff^rentes nullit^s s'uppiiquei.t auHsi dans le nouveau droit, quoi* 
que la loi ne Icsexprime pas tcxtUellcnient \ inais I'ordre dtabli et la nature dea 
actcs eonsidt^rcnt udocssaircment cou\me des nuUit^w, toutcs contraventions aux 
rdgles pr^sontcs en ces tnatii^res." 

Lu conclusion de cet examen de la loi, est qu'elle d^fcrid do saisir les choses qui 
ont 4t6 ddclar^cs ezemples de saisie ; que cctte d^fenee est positive et imperative, 
qu'elle couiporte et par elle scule la nullitd de laaaisie. L'huissier s'cst rendu 
coupable d'une violation de la loi, et passible des punitions qui ddcoulent de 
toute violatio;D de la loi. Le oonsentemcnt que le saisi aurait pu donncr, de 
saisir es chokes d^clardes insaisissablos ; ne scrait pas une justifi'oation pour agir 
contre la defense positive de laioi. 

Lo saisissant no pcut non plus invoquer u6 <)onsentemdnt pr^alable donn^ par 
lo ddbitcur pour justifior une saisie prohib<$e par la lot. \^ \ . ,. 

Coqime I'expriment les jurisconsultes, quand le Mgislateur parle an nomi d& 
I'int^rSt g^n^ral, il oommande ou defend. II comroaiide ou il defend dans ccs 
cap, dans I'intetgt de la soci^td. Or la Awi^t^ ne scrait plus possible, si'& raison 
de leur int^rdt purtioulier, les citoyens pouvaient se mcttre au-dessus do rint6r6t 
social, en ddrogcant aux I'ois qoi les conccrnent. C'est done un prineipe d'une 
^ternelle vdrit^, qjie Ton ne peut permettro aux oitojens de d^ro^rer aux lots- 
d'intdrdtvpublic. ^— . 

Comme r^gle fondamentalc, jl y a lieu de pr6noncor que lorsque la rigle legis- 
lative est absolue, I'ocd^o public est toujours doublement interesse k son obser- 
vation, lo. Farce quielo pr^cupte est necessairement diot^ par des considerations 
de morale, ou ,^e bien .general. 2o. Faroe que la premiere oonditioa d'ordre 
social est 1ft soumission des particuliers a la vulonte du legislateur. 

lj^!QI»jp<)sition des dePendcurs h la suisie des choses indiqueos dans Icars ecri- 
tttres est dediirdo bien fondec. « 

^' ■- : , , ' Opposition maintenne. 

Teflier; deLabrui/ire et BeaucJiemin, avooats du demandcur. 
iSUotte et Blanchet, avocats du defendeur opposant. ■ 



/ 



.'v.. 




-■t: 



DU BANC DE LA RfilNE, 1885. 



)U BANC DE LA HEINE, 188fi. 
(En Appel.) 

MO^JTIIAaL, 26 SEPTEMBRB 1885. 

l»rdscnt, :_.Sir A. A. DoRioN^q. J., Les Hoih juge, Monk, RAMSAr, Choss, 

\ot Babt. 

THUS. ED. D'ODEi;^DOR-SO.V.VE.VS,tAt. • 

• Appilahtb, 

Contmlant* en Cour Sup^rieuti ■ 



imk 



BT 

JOSEPil OHRiaTIN, 

iKTmi, 
0,ipoiant en Cour Supirieure. . 
lo. Quiin tuteur ne peut, iiir an Jugement de distribution, fairo wloir une recU: 
m.ition contra «on pupille.sil na pas au prdalabVwindu compte dqa fruit* et 
^ rerenuj de I'immeuble qu'il a e»ploit6 durant la tuteHe ; uoe aemblable rficla^ 

raation ne peut faire I'pbjet d'uoo demande dlitinote et^«roe (Tu compte de 
tutent. \ , ' ^x "^ 

. 20. Que le tiers qui a ara611or6>a chose d'autrui doit enlever se» li^^liorations lors 
'.. du dolaissement de nrnmeuble, <t s'il na pas ttiXtxk lea dites amfiliorations en 
temps utile et s'il Inisse vendre limmeuble are^ lea dites ami^Horauimi il ne 
^ peui ensmte, sur opposition afln de conserver, e|i roclamer la v^leur \ 
_ : 3o. Qu'un tuteur ne peut 6lre locataire des biens del son pupille. ( ktt.. aoo C u > 
L-s appclants out 6\6 pourauivis pur un ordanoior IhypothdoaireJ Ilsf ont dti- 
lais.se Icur iramoublo qui a did vcndu sur lo curatour crdd an ^dlaissemont 
L lat.me s'os^ portd a.ljudio.itarro de cct unmoublo pUr le prU dc 813 601 er • 
apr6sr,dj.idioation, il a produit uno opposition afin ^e conterver BuAlei denitn 
dan. laquell. ilalI6„'u. qu'il a dtd lo#ataire pondaut i,n sraod nomb^ d'unndos 
de LmmeuMo vondu par lo slidrif; quo pendant q4'il detenait ainsi oet im- 
meublo i t.tro preoaironl y a djo^d dcs c.nstruotions ii sea dcpons et pour lui- 
m6iiie; / 

•' Que cos constructions ont ajoutd 4 la valour do riibmoublo : que la valour 
vdnale au moment du ducrSt on dtait do $1,400.00. / 

Quo cos constructions aynnt drd vendues avcc le resto de^l'irtaieubie' il a le 
doit do domandcr d'fitre pay6 do lourvalour par prf fdronccs^uV le prix d'adiu- 
dicatiun. ,. , \ • 

La position qu'assume fintiAjd c'ost qu'ildtait propridtaire des'constructions 
^ i«S^ titre il eilt pn cmpficlier la vcnto do cette portion de I'iiUeuble, mais 
<luo^ne,8'dtant pas pourvu k temps par opposition afin de distraire, iKpeut faire 
valw ^6.ixpi\» .par opposition afin'decoimroer sur les deniors. \ 
41 ^7/0'''^'* d'orfro.de distribution a colloqu* I'intiind pou^la so'mnie de 
«l,178.3i», aux iferiiies meimes de son opposition. Les ddfendeurl dans la caqse 
qui sont t^mtenantJes^appclants, ont eux aussi ltd colloquds par le projet 
dordre-do distribution pour la sommo do $3,432, rdsWu des deniers provenant 
dela vcDte de leurimmeuble. ,1' ,' 

' Con^iddrant la rdclamation do I'intiind mal fondde, iU ont'oontestd son oppo- 
sition et sa collocation. Voici lours may(<n.s, iU disaienti 

Lintimd on 1855 a dtd nommd tuteur iiuz enfants de feu Qharlei Gaty (au ^ 
nombre de ces deniers so trouva-t I'appel^Dt, Tdlpsphore Caty), rhnmouWo ^ 
vondu par le eherif, fo^t partie des biens des mfiieurs Charles Cat^, et I'in- 



■V^: 



■# 



.:'>■ 



10 



C'OUR DU BANC D^ L.l REIME, 1835. 



Joi. Cbriitin. 



D'Oriooncn' *''"V" "' *"* I'ndminiHlrntinn, dopitjs 1855. junqu'uu prcn.icr mai 1875, en h» 
et »l. n"'>'''«5 do tutcur. En 1855, cct iiiiiilvublo so coniposuit d'uil terrain (t'6tondant 
et do |a rue St. Donis ii la rue Sunguinct (nynnt front «ur Icm deux rues), do d^ux 
bloca do niaiRons Rur cliaquo ruo ct d'une petite maison qui wstrouvait Imm^- 
diatomcnt ii I'tirriiVo des iiiaisons do la rue Sansuinct. Cctto petite maison rop- 
portait 842.00 de loyor annuel. 

Au commoncenitnt do la troisitVne nnndo do non odminiHtratioD, Havoir en 
185/, Tinlinit^ oceupu lui-iiiOmo ccttc maison qu'il convertit en usino pour la 
fabrication d'oaux ijaioasc.-. Peu il pcu hch nffnirc.^ aupnicntunt, il agrnndit cctto 
bAtissc, ii y fit dos allonutcs, ct dv8«dditionp, en ui> mot, construisit s'ur lo tor- 
rain do KH pupillcB ^iic UNino avcc tous bcr acccssoircir. 

L'intimd cxi)lQit'a cctte usinc pour Fon profit jcisonnVj pcndnnt toute la durt^o 
de son ndniinist ration. Dan.s k coniptc do iutcllo fiu'llVendit BuWqucmment 
u Bc« pupillcs, il no porta pus en dispenses lo cofit do cos coVtructions, cstimaut 
qu'il Ics iivait (-levdcR pour lui-niCmo A scs frais ot non pour Kts mincurs, 

II 80 cliargca douic piastres de loyer annuel pour roccupMion du terjain 
vacant, ubsolu^t coninie s'il n'y cftt jamais fuit de construction^.*^ 

Bo leur cOti, Ics mincurs Cuty, devenus majeurs, fircnt un partago^o lours 
bieus ct rimmeublo en question tomba dans le lot de I'appclant Caty. 

Co dernier fit, do temps a autre, avcc I'intipi^, divers arrangcmcnta par 
losqucls il lui laissa continuer I'occupation et J'exploitation de I'usino en ques- 
tion, sur son terrain. £n 1882, Caty, un dcs appelantn, mit l'intimd Christin, 
en deineure d'enlevcr ces constructions avcc tons fcs mculKs et machineries^ 
L'intimd n'ayant pas rdpondu A, son protCt et n'ayant pas enlevd se* construc^\ 
,tion8 aveo avantago pour lui s'il dtait forcd de rdtablir les lieux dans lour premier 
^tat f et considdrant que ces constructions devaient lui rester, sans indemnitd, il 
'ntenta contre I'ibtimd une action en expulsion pour le forcer H ddlaisscMt son 
Wrain et ces eonstruttions. La I'our Supdrieure ordonna ii Christin, l'intimd 
d'aban^onner la po.«session tant du terrain que des constructions. 

Lift Ciur d'Appel a confirmd ce jugcmont, rdservant a, Christin te^l droit qu'il 
pourrait avoir d'enlevcr ses amdliorations. ' » 

En 18S0, Tdlcspliore Caty a donod la nue propridtd de I'immcuble en ques- 
tion i scs enfants mineurs et s'cn est rdserv6 I'usnfruit. L'uetion a, en conse- 
quence, did dlrigde contre Tdlosphorc Cuty comme usufruitier et contre lo Dr. 
D'Orsonnens, en sa qualitd do tutcur aux enfants mincurs de Thdlesphory Caty. 

Les intimds soutienncnt que Ics constxuctions faites par Cliristin ne lui appar-. 
tiennent pas, ayant ^tdincorpordcs au sol do mani^^re ii ne former aveo lui qu'uD 
Bcul toutdont Jes intimdii sent proprletaires : Vide ^t ce point : Pothier, Edit. 
. Buir. vol. 9, No. 170; ,^ 

9Ddmolombc, NoH. 101, 104, 655; , w'' ' 

f?, Laurent, Nos. 253 ; arts. 414, 415. ''' ,v9 

C. C, Aubry et Eau, vol. 2, No., 180, note 4 ; 

La demande formde^par le tiers constructeur contre le proprid taire ea paiement 
du prix d'estimation est mobiliere et porsonnelle. JWmoIombo 9, No. 168 ; 6, 
Laurent; Nos. 416, 417, Ch&mpiottniere tt Rcgond, 4, No- 3187 ; 



COUR DU BANC DE L* REINE, 1885. 



11 



L'opposUion uBn do conjcrvcr n'e«t rien autre chow qu'une opposition ri/i/j die j, r. D'Od.l 
cliiirje fiiiie, oon plu4 ovapt la vento, mulg opr6s. . DOMonn«ni- 

I'oihier No. 691, p. 2«8, Edit. Hugnct, dit : N *',f 

" Los oppositions, A 8d^o distrains ou'do charge qui sont formiJcs apris le"'"* ObrliUn. 
" congd d*udj.iper...K)nt convortios ea oppositions afin do oonsorver, ot lea oppo- 
" sants sont colloqud^ sur le prix do rhdrftogo saisi, pour l.i tomme ik laquello 
" 0/1 etlinu h vaUur th droit qui leur ap^artitnt iltnt Vhiriutge:' 

Et (r/linconl, Vonto dcs immoubics, p. J45, traitant cc point dit j " en oo cas 
" Xlorsquo Ics oppositions no sont pas fu^,^ A temps) les opposonts afin do dis- 
"^niirc ct afin do charge sont colloquds Bur lo prix du biod vondu, par privildgo, 
" pour lu vakur de icur, liens compris mal i-propos, dans la uisie r<Solle, ou :^ 

" pour mifeur cfcs churgct, soit rentes, soit florvitudos auxquellos los biens ^ient 
" nssujettis ; " c'ust oo quo dit notro article 652 C. P. C. | r 

On dit : les appcl .nU no pouvont plus pormettre H I'lntiin^ d'onlever iJ cons- 
tructions. Miiis CO n'fcst pas lour fuuto, mais bicn cello do" rintimd qui k Wm6 
vcndro cos constructions sans s'y opposor. D'aiUcurs, le fait que TintiL s'est 
porld ndju.licatairo o4 purcmcnt uccidentol,' La Cour de Cassation a jui«5 quo 
I'adjudieatiire pcut forcer un tiers construdtcur H enlever les oonst^ructioi qu'il 
a elevdos sur Ic terrain du veudcur ct quo lo rccours do tiers construotcur WAb 
liidjudicution, doit 8'e!ccrccr eontre riijudioatnire. 
ro«VDalIo« I860— 1—384. 

Zaimnt, Vol, 6, No. 276, toutient aussi cette opinion. 
L'iiitinie do son c6t^ prdteqd que, Christin, comme tuteur, o'est-A-dire oomih©. 
maiidataire d(S(enant dcs immeubles dont il avait I'adininistration, pouvait injo-^ 
qucr lo droit de rdtention pour scs impenses 'ct ameliorations ? L'aflirmativo 
rdsuIted|8loi8 25ef 26^."Z)ej»rac«ra<o/^i6M«.- \1 ' ■ /^ 

Siretcntione aliqud procurator uti velit, non facUe ab eo lis eris tmm/e- 
rcnda nisi dominua ei solvera paratus sit. ^^ 

Telle est I'opiniod de Pothier, (Contrat du Mandat, No, 69) : " bbservcz 
ndanraoins, dit-il, que le mandataire n'est obligd de tostituer au mandant des 
".cbrps certains qui lui sont parvenus de sa gestion qu'A la charge par le man- 
« dant do le rembourser au pr^ulable dcs ddbours^ qu'il a faits pour sa gestion, 
" jusqu'i CO, que le mandatoire pout les retenir, veluti quod tm jure pignons " 

Wensebcck euseigno la |«dme doctrine :-i«?2w«»» "< enimmnquam iUi ' 
officium esse damnosum g/uin et retentione quasitarum rerum procurator uti 
potes. 

Ad. Digest, liv. Ill, Tit. 3, No. 8. 

Vofit fist du mSmft sentiment, (livrc 14, tit. 3,' N0..9.) 

Christin, possesseur do bonne ou de mauvaise fol,*avait-il un droit de r^ten^ : 
tion pour ses impenses et ameliorations ? L'affirmative r^sulte des articles 419 
et 1640 du Code Civil. v 

L'intime pouvait done n'gtre tenu de livrer ses constniotions au defendeur 
qu'apres en avoir re^u le prix. H avait un droit r^el dans I'immeuble vendu 
jusqu-a concurrence do ses ameliorations. Ce droit do retention, ce droit reel 
constitue en sa favour un privilege qu'il est justifiable de redamer par opposi- 



/. 



\ 



12 



C0U9 DU HANC DK LA BEINE, 1885. 



D^OnSin^^Ji """""" ''• <">"*«'''«'■ Article 729 (5odo do ProcdJaro Civile. S. R./B. C, «. 

T.1 * ««. "• 16. 8 3. Horicoajt, pgo 203, § Vn. 
J«. Ubri.tin. ^"#""*' '^* RenncA jonvier 1821, rio.«oux & nl. w. Daoosta & n|., ddoido 
quo :— " Lo forni(5hi droit d'fltro plloqu6 par priviW(te itur l« prix des 4ni- 
ineublca vcndus sur Skiaio immobili^fi^ pour lo monttnt des r<;par«tiona qu'il a 
fuit foiro a 9C8 fraia avanVia vcnto, et qui ont amdiiortf \o>t imnieublea aaiaia." 

;La vonto par 1« ahdrif n'a fuit quo ootivoi'tir la proprit^d Tfndijc en une 
jommo do depiera qui la repr«58er.»o ct aur luquello lea crdanolcra peuvent' exer»;or 
•oa droita qu'i^anraient pu cxercbr aur la propri(St<5 niomo. Or lea deniandciira 
no pouvaiont <xeroer leur hyp,ith»^quo, ct lea nppoIiinU no reocvoir aucuno partie 
■ du prix d'adjudi^ation, qu'upris deduction dca ani(<Horations fiiitea par Chriatin. 
Lea appolanta prdtcndopt que TintiniA n'a conire eux qu'un rccoura pcraonncl. 
En uduicltaot cctto pr<tiention, quel intdrOt ontila H conteater aon droit do 
r^olamer par oppoaition afin de oons^rvor, .lorsqu'il n'exiato dans la cause aucun 
autre ordunoier personnel, L'objcotion dca appelanta est de niauvaiso foi. Si 
rintimd n'avait pas 6t6 colloqud, eux I'auraient dt6 i. sa place. 

L'opposition afin de oonaorvor aur lo» Seniors, dit I'article 719 C. P. C, 
neat ndcessaire que pour lei ordances que H) repistrateur uVat pa« tcnu d'in- 
. s<$rer dans leocrtificat des hypothdque8,&c,&o. Elle est dwc ndoeSsaire, et pnr 
• I* consdquent admissible pour touJea lea autrea'cr<5ances. \ j 

Los droits de I'intimd en cette cause rcposcnt eur ccttA^njaxime qu'il n'est 

/ permis & personpe de s'enrichir aux ddpcns d'autrui ; Neminm a-qum e,t cum 

I alteriu, dcmno locuphtari. Co principe souverain est consacrd dans uno foule 

' - d articles do notre Code (416, 417, 418, 430, 434, 435, 436,'437, 438, 439. 

1304, 1516, 1646, M73, 2009, 2013, 2073), il . toujours M re^poot^ p .r noi 

cours. , 

La Compagnie de Prfit et Cr<5dit Fonder et Joseph St. Germain. 
Decisions de la Conr d'appel, vol. ,1, page 192. 
J ^''ice et Courtemanche, XVn, L. C. R., page 433. 

\ " ' ^Iat*e «t I-oroche, Q. L. R., vol. 4, page 66. ° ^ J - 

.1 Voioi lejugcment de la Cour: '. ^ 

La Cou/eto. . - 

Consid^ant que Tintimi par son opposition ' en cour- de premidre [nstanc e 

reclame Vie 8omn.ede«1400.00 pour le prix et valeur d'am^liorations qu'il 
pretend ivoir luites pendant qu'il 4tait le tuteur de Joseph T. City, sur les 
' immeuWes do son pupillo qui^ont i\6 vendusen cette cause. 

Considdrant qu'il appcrt que I'intim* pendant la tutello qu'il a eue^des biens 
do ^n pupille a joui de l'in.n.cuble sur lequel il pretend avbir fait ces am<Jliora- 
tioor et quo s'll a quclq ues rdolumations contre son pupille pour les ameliorations 
quil pout avoir ainsifaites, ce n'esjt qulipres deductions des fruits et reveou 
dontil doit compter son pupillcj et que^ pretendues reclamations de I'jntimi ' 
no pcuvent fuire 1 objet d'une d-emande distinct^ s^^aree du eompte de tutelle 
dfl par 1 ,nt.me au dit J. T. Caty, sof^punille, et V ce n'est que sur ce compte 
qu il peut Stre determine si I'intime est le creancie>ou le debitear da dit J. T 
Caty ; ^ , / ' , ' 

Attcndu de plus quo le dit intime en le considdrant comme un tiers ayant 



-'^ • 



CQUB DU BANC DE LA RBiyis, 1886. 



ilui qu« le 



18 



•t 

Jot. Ohriitiiu 



•BBdIiort U ohoM d autru! n'aunit eu tout «a pfus qu« la droit d'eolarar low- t. B D'Odat 
qu il a d<$liiM<{ le dit iinio«ubl« lea am^lioratiooa qu'il avait faitea, droit qu'il n'a D'OnonMnt 
paa jug< A propoa d'oiorcer ; ^ , at »l. 

Et oooaiddrant que If dit iotinid a laiaad vendro l« dit immeuble avoo lea ditea 
anxSIiorationa ot qu'il a'en eat renda adjuJioataire aana auoaoe rdelamafion ou 
oppoaitioD dd aa port et quil n'cafc nullcment fond«J d rtfolamer aur U prix du 
dit immeuble, une indcmnit<$ ezotSdant de boauooup la Valcur du droit qu'il aurait 
pu avoir d'cnieyer ooa ameliorations. 

Et oonsiddunt qu'il y a erreur dana le Juj^ement rendu par la cour dp premi6- 
rtf iDBtonoo lo 9 avril 1884. 

Cotto oour ca8(^^^eto., ot ordonno une nouvelie distribution et oollooatloD 
dcs dornicra nccord<5e pur la collation No. 11 du projet de distribution oa 
oetto cause ait lieu auivant la pratique de cotto Cour, etc. 

n. jj II i. If n Jugomont^repTen^. 

ife mueftuiUe et Bomn, avocata de:i appolont)". 

Lacotte, Gloieiuki.JiUailton et Broueau, avocats dcs intim<59. 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.. 
(App«al Side.) 

', , MONTREAL, 23BD NOVEMBER, 1888. 

Present : Dorion, 0. J.. M6nk. Ramsay. Cbobs & Baby, J.J. 
THE HAMILTON POWDER CO. 

(^iftndanli in the Court Mow), 

AND APPaUANTS,- 

WILLIAM B. LAMBE as (joAL. ., .^r-. 

(J'liiintif in the Court btlow), 

a 'mi: , RaSPONDBNT. 

HauBLB :-Tb«t the Local Legi(Iatur« of the Province of Quebec baa not the riirbt to pasa 
a statu.te, impoeing a rewnue tax npon licenses, for the sforlng of exploalvee ; 

HaiDi-That secUon 170 of tbe Qa,bec License Act of 1878 imposing a pinaltr of J600 
upon persons keeping a powder magazine without license is not 4,ltra vires 
and such p«nalt7 may be recovered from persons storing explosives i^out 

Beld bf RiKSAT a Babt, ^ J. That the Legislature of Qaebec has the rigM under sub 
see 9. sec. 93, B. N. A. Act to impoae a revenue duty on licenses to store 
. explosives. 

The facta of the caae and the pretensions of the parties may be briefly stated 
as follows : * 

The action was brought by plaintiff in his quality of revenue inspector to' 
recover from the defendants a penalty of $500.00, for having made use of a 
powdermagaEine fot the storage of powder without a license, under section 170 
of the Quebec Act, 41 Viet., cap. 3, with conclusions for said sum payable Id 
whom of right. r j m™ w 

The appellants pleaded. w 

1. Adi/en$een/aut. "^ . 



.5 






' , 



1 14 



COURT OF QUKKN'S nENOIt, 1885. 






I? 



'potS-Tco" ^' ^"'"'''"'^ '**•' Charter 25 VIo. onp 73 (oopj of which h •nnc«a), by 

•,11,1 " wliich ehpy cinim thut they wor« incorporated unJcr iho mid nnmc, andouthO' 

^ »i'«u«l"''^ •■'•cJ •<> oirry «« " >«> tlio county of Ilulton, or in «uoh oilier place or plocM as 

" nilglit, bcilccmpd odviMble all t>i6 ncccwnry buitiniMontinroted with or apper- 

"tuiniiiK or beti nging to the nianuracturo and «ule of ({unpowdort ond acid*, 

;*• and with all powers inoideiit thorato, an will appear by tlio Raid AdI." 

Thut tlicy lift»e nincc thereundor cwirriad on their bunincM at BelfloH, and 
clitcwiioro, und^r the protection of the aaid Act, aijd liad never lte| t or made m«o 
of any magnzin* for the utoraj-o of powder beyond whiit waancecuary for their 
lu^tlooiw, tinniely, the manufocturo and nilo of powder, and are not witliin the 
clauTO'Af the Statute ui keeping or Uhing a Innguiino for the fttorunc of powder 
which wduld under Bcotiona 170 and 171, iti* Hubmittud, opply to per»on» keep- 
ing powder f*<r fale in quuntitieii czoccding 25 Ibii. 

That, moreover, the dcfoudunta having excreiacd thei^ rights under their 
charter, and in strict* accordance wifh tho terms thereof, are not liable to bo 
rc!>trictcd in their business and controlled by tho terms of tho Act in question, 
ond that any power to mnko suoli regulations ought not to bo comttruod so as to 
interfile with tho powers grafted to appellonts and used by ihem long lieforo 
the date of tho Uritish North Auorioa Act under which tho (Quebec Legislature 
presume to i^t. 

The judginont of the Superior Court was as follows : 
La Cour, npr6» avoir ent^du los parties en ootto cause, lu Uj)rquve, eiaiuind 
Wproc<$duroj ot avoir sur le rout d<$lib($4rt^. 
'^ Attendtt 6\xo Ic demundeur, inspeotijur dos liocnees pour le district du Revenu 
de Montr^at, poursuivo la^ d<5(bftdvT:oiiiBe pour avoir contrcvenu aux dispositions 
do Tuote dci licences do 187?i, en gardunt dans la parolsso de Beleoil, lo 18 do 
d<$oombre 1882, uno poudri^ro, sans avoir prdulablomont obtonu In lioenoo 
fcquiso, otjr^dame de la dito ddfundorosse la p^nulil^ de $500.00 imposi^e par 
I'acte susdit ; 

Attondd que la dc'fenderesso a plaids qu'ello dtait une compagnie organisde 
pour les fins do la manufacture de la poudro par I'aoto pussd par la ci-dovaiit 
province du Canada, savoir la 25e Vict., chap. 73, quo par cot aoto oHe est 
autorisde & oonstruire et muintenir en proinanenee dcs bdtisses pour les fins et 
I'cxcrcico de son indiistrib dans les liiliites do la ci-devant province du Canada 
qu'ello ado fait construit dcs (Sdifioos et magasins dout elle se sort pour I'em- 
tnagasina^c et vento do lu pou^re ot autroa objots qu'ello manufuoturo, que la 
liccnoe r^olanido no serait qu'^no taxe ddguiii^o,^ qu*il n'dtait pas au pouvoir do 
la Itjgiiiluturo provinei;do d'imposor sur I'indu.strie do la ddfendoresso, quo I'im- 
p6t de cotte taxe intervient aveo le eonimcroe et n'ost pas de la juridiotion 
prpvinciitle, quo oeTte tuxo a 6t6 imp9.s^3 en vue de prtSlovor un revenu sur le 
commerce de la dite defendercsae et quo Tucte on vortu duquel eljo a ^t^ impo- 
86e est tdtra vire» ; t 

Consid^^ant qu'il est ^tubli quo la dcSfendercsse a construit inhs la paroiase 
do Beloeil, dans rcncluve du diatriot du revenu de Montreal, dcs edifices dans 
lesqucls elle a cmiuugusind et gurd^ aux 4poquca mentioundoa dans la declara- 



^ 



•X' 



», and outho* 



COURT OP QUKKN'8 BENCH. 1888. 



IB 



tioD one qunntird rio poadro cio^dant fing-dnq 1ivr«i, ot oola, m»» arolr lu Th* 
prtftlabie (blvnu la Iioenc« inipw^* pur la aMiion 170 ou ehup. 3d*U41a **" 
VM.j ' W. 

Coniid^raiit quo Mite liconon n'a pua diA impn*^)) en »ue do pr^ietor an * 
reTetiu, niaia au oontmiro n'oit qu'un ri^uiloaioiitdo polioo qu'il Mait au pouvoir 
d« la Miiialiiture provinoi ilo d'iinponor, quQ loa« pouvoira ct prlvildgoa aooordd* 
k la (l^fendoroira par Ron aoto dlneorporiition no anuraioiitU aoaairaira aui tola 
ct r(^i;;|pmcnU de pnlioo doa difTdrciitoa provinoca oii il lul «at porniia d'«x«ro«r ton 
intluiirie; 

C'onsiddraiit quo la di'fondorcana ayant uinai oontrorouu auv ilUpoaitlooa de 
I'licto ol-dcasua oit6 ot a'eat rundue pnaaiblo do I'unionde de I5U0.00 r^eluni^e 
par III pronto aoilon ; 

La Cour oondanino la ddrcndor^MO k payer la nomuio do l&OO.OO ontre lea 
muina du dumaDdcur pour (>tro nppliqu<$o ot diviitde tuivant la lui. 

Tlio appellant arRUcd tliut : 

The Act 2b Vio. cap. 73 haa txioo soTornl timoa anicndod, via. : 

1. By 41 Vio. cap. 3: » 

2. " 43-3 Vio. oap. IL 

3. " 4b Vio. oap. 9. . 
" 46 " *•' 6. 

To ahew tfiat tbo dutioa payable for lioeniio, and tbe ponnltiea impoacd 
furfeiture to tuke audi liocnao in the niattor in qucation did not originate in any 
discretionary power to bo exuroinod for the public protection, but wore enacted 
by the Legislature oa a moana of rniain)< revenue and for no other purpose, we 
niny refer to the act 46 Vio. cap. 6 aa applicable to thia case. 

Section 1 enaotH: 

" It ia declarediluit. the dutiea payoblo for lioonaca imposed by acction 63 
" of the Quebec Ifioense Act of 1878, aa replaced by section 17 of the Act 4.^ and 
" 44 Victi cap. 11, were ao imposed io order to the raising of a revenue for the . 
" purposes of thia Province under the po?»er conferred upon the Legislature of 
" thia Provinoe by tbe 9tb par. of section 92 of The British North AmcriotfAot. 
" 1867." • 

By this it would appear that the duties payable for liocnsos under the Act. of 
1878 and its amendmenttf^ ore declared to havo been imposed and levied for 
pwrposcs of revenue, and not at all as a public regulation for the protection of 
the public, and that the penalty imposed by section 170 of the Act of 1878. 
could not be enforced for failure to tuke a lioensfi nacted for revenue purposes 
only. 

The pretentions of defendants are that although the Qiiebee Legislature can 
pass Acta which may be tcrmed^police regulations for the protection of the 
public, yet it is not omnipotent and oanifot control or limit the powers 
conferred by a charter granted before ibe Legislature, with its present poifors, 
had exiatence. 

The limits to what are termed police regulations must bo this— the reguia- ' ' 
tions must have reference to the comfort, safety and welfare of society—they 



m 



^ 



rUmlllM 
w<l»r tJo. 

•ad 

R. liamba 
« qiml. 



■/' 



i 



r 



^■&nj,r(i-'ia.i 



■A- ia^lfeltf 



.r 



.!« 



COVftT Of QOMCT't BIKOII. 1|8A 



b, '«, '°J",T,""''' ""■ ""' "" ""•- 1" I""""" !• «•• .blob I. I.,.„l 

po..».ob„M p,,,,., .„i ,. ^:.x^::ix't';zr::. 

J * Tim reiponJont arKUcd mM : 

. r«i!l«iiient. "^ """ """'P"'!"" " Pout doonor pliu J, f„TOi .u 



.7 



COUBT OF QUKKN '8 BRNCII, I88A. 



17 



Th« appeal in (hU «aaa b (Vnm a Ja<l{tni«nt enmlitHinlnir iha HninllliMi t*ow>l«r "^If 
<'om|Mflj, allha auUoriha iM-pxrtfw of tnlumi HiMrcnur, lo pay a |MnnUy of *" 
•600 Tor iHolitlion olllieprn«iiil<iim()r»««. 170ori>i« yun».«w litrntna* AaloflHT^, ^ 
in ii«ing a powiJ«r iua(railn« for Ilia itnnitra of guii|wt«(lar wiUiout • llactiM. 
T(.« pr.»»M«^^«f «lia atatuld in qiiMlinn i« aa rollnwa: "Any p«mm wlm 
k..pa or ni^lra u«« of a powder ma((asine f..r lh« atorajra of powJar wilhout a 
liecnaa, ihatil bo lialrla to • poniil proa«€«ti(>o, aoder •hieh h« nuij be own- 
doinnadl ^ a Ina ofiaOO." Tlia appallatia hnro pl<ttilti<l an<l onnlrna tbal their 
ronipwnjfwna incorporatod arilh pownr lo nianitracliiru and m>I| |iu(ipo«drr by 
A«' "Hlio lit<Ki*laturnorWMnadii U-foro (:<.;ifodetali.>n, and iho privilege* a<i 
conforrod on tii^ro and hitlierto onjoyod «o^)d not b« inlerfared willi by prorin. 
ciiil lu^i»lalinn aftor Conftdorati.m, nioroofar, ihnt the proviainna of (he I'rovTn' 
ciiil Act* in Ihia rrapoot only applied to the keeping of pnwdor for pa!o in quan« 
Utii* cx(Mtfiii|r 2ft iba. That tliay only »»<irod wlial wnancooaaary in tliecourao 
of the manufiioturinft and mile of the article, and the I,P|{i»i|nluro had no right 
to ini|ioM) a tax for r«»oniin purponea on auoh a mnriufiiclnry. wliieh th«y hod 
dtcliihid (ho tui in (|Uoittion to be by Stiitulo ofgucbco, 4fl Vic. cap. B, ace. 1, 
^|ioh roada aa fullowa : " Ii ia doolHred tfiat tlio duiioa pnjablo for lieenaca 
Uu\>md hj aec. iVA of llic Qucbeo Livonae law of 1878 were ao impo-cd in (ydor 
to Iho. raiaing of n rcronuo for tho purpo«<n of tliix province, undor the power 
tfonforrcd upon iho LtjilNioiure of tliii province by tlioOlli par. of mc. 92 of (he 
VnMi North America Act of 1867." Thcrefofo that, a« regard* tliom, the np- 
pollanta, (ho Htntuto in (|U(ation wna illeu'al and «/'m »«>«, and llio peniilty 
could not be recovered. Wo do not And that nny doubt vraa riii«-d na to the 
fnctoftJio oppellunti having nmiiufucturcd and atored auoh quantity of gun-' 
f)«wdur8B rendered thoin linblo to the penalty in qucntion, provided the climw 
<<ni(Cting (ho penalty ia within (lie power of the rrovlnoial T^giMuture. See. 
171 of (he .Statute in queatiftn. 41 Vie. cap. 3, rcada na followa : " Kvery 
builJiftg liaed for the B(orago or keeping of any quantity of powder exceeding in 
weight 25 poanda in hold to be a jwwder nia'^'azino witliin the moaning of thia 
luw." The proof made Icavca no doubt that the iwnnlty woa incurred if iho 
ProvioolaloLegialature had (ho power to create auoh a pcDtttj for a like act, 
thatia, for failing to take out « liconae. S* long n;:o aa the cnucting of the . 
Statute of I^wcr Canada, &9 Goo. 3, cap. 9, legial itive provixion waa made 
for the Btorago of gynpowder in Quebec and Montreal, and by later Acta the 
Ciiy Council of Montreal waa authorized to umke by laws to regulate the re- 
moval and cartage of gunpowder through the city. Ponaltioa were Imposed by 
these HUtutca na well aa authorized to bo imponed by the by-lawa of the City 

council, andV«t'»t«<«ofthe Province of Canada 27 iinti 28 Vie. cap. 61, Uio 

City eounoila of Quebec and Montreal were authorised (o make by-lawa f^r 
licenaing persona to keep powder magniinos. Apart altogether from the pur- 
poHCB of revenue, the bundling and atorngo of so dungcrouB a combustible aub- 
aUnoe as gunpowder would secni to bo a proper subject of police regulation, jind 
tbcrefloro proper to bo controlled by, and made subject to, license therefore, 
w^ithin the juri»4iotion of the Piovinciut' Legislature. It is quite a difforenl 







i« 



COirRT or QtfKRNM Bi»eii, 1^; 



iiii 



III 



w .rf-^c:; n^; u\t:i /' r*'" •'.* ?''^ '^•-•^ '*^'»'* ^^^^ '^'^^ 

Lit; lu 'll"u 1 "'V ""i '""'" '" •• "•"* "^** ••^•♦►•-.'or . 

. .W od„r ||«.„^., .,.. oll..r |io.„«. .|„„ r,.r.rr«d .« b.i,.K ro.lrl«...a u, .1..,; ^\ 
fj>,,.lrmj.j,er,», |«„g„„^ «hioh •«.«»», to b..»„ U.«n i,m.i« u« „f U ,!,«(, |,.d| '^ 
•hi,.- «f a« I riv; f«oiHil «« r.for«..«ft .« .I.« «„...- pr..,Uior, «f U,o H.,..,il.. i; ! 
r.lK.,I.Ul« J)„„,r«'. ll,K.kon .U C..».liimio„, p. 230. 'Ilu, cn«i «|*k-.«S *<^ 
v.. ,1,0 gu^ »,rjr much r..cmbl«. ih. «„« „«» «„.,,, c,„.,.i4„ JMV ih« 
l.c.,..« cl. 0.H to b. r«,Hir...i lor .l.»i cn«,. oo«ld |r, „„ „,„„„^fliri. . 
' I-.U.0 r^Kul-uon, „ I U.ink,,l.c uno now ,„ ca„„l.jn c..„,.l ' „ r.Z, .Ut " 

Hk. io,»« «. ,ia b« go.Hi 1.5 nn(«u.« ,i.« „„„^ ,f ^^«^....|.r. «hho„«i. it 

.".Kl. nol .fo.l ,., , «,««„, of ^i«|„K I.,«vi„ci.l re,unuo : llmt i<i, th« WWaluro- 

«!1 rfTf,' """'"• '"•'• "''"• -"'"^ •'"'"'^-'y h.v«?.„«UHl. 
..odcnu, f« ^l^ t - gr«uu„g „f ,|.„ lic^ea,,, ,„„,, ., ,,„p,^,, , ^^. ,^ ^,., ^^ 

t Act ,^I,leh mjuiro- tl.« pnymoni of . n . of 1 1 ou iIk, ««„.;„« o f U,« 

■ ic.n«> ThI. i. o,clu..«*f the ro«„B. du.j of |W .ft«»ard, provided ftr. 
I hot. if th, c....troT««y t»,„o up .qu.iroly u t,i whether »ho Ix^xUlnmrc w.» 
rrov dtoK for ... e,«ctkjJj^.yo,.,l i,. power, .. it d«c« i„ the oa-o of the oiK of 
Mon re.| m. U ..Iter jffT-.M.. hie .liow.„oe n.i«ht be t^-lo for » lieeo..,,, for 
*'"<?»' »^cre would be . valid co,«iderution, nod (rhioh would, itMlf be Ick„| al- 
•hough ineffloacou. to warrant the «tr. wuotion of . reronue duty. Hut U 
b«. been ob«,r,od dm, ,ht St.luto of Quoboc. 4(J Vio. o»p. 5. d..,!.,;. jt).«t tb. 
du..o« payable for heo„.o. |,„po«J by .ectioa 63 of tho gu^bee iio«,.« |uw of 
1H78 were m impowd in order ,0 ,hO raining of a revenue for tho purpose, of 
tU provtoee under tU power conferred upon the LeKi.Uturc of t\i provinec 
Ij the 9,h par. ol «,o 02 of the BritLh Amorlen Act of mi. A Kmding inotiTo 
- for. the pa«.l„« ol thut Act «e.ni. ,0 have bvcn ,0 Mt at re.t doubU. whieh had 
. «rr-«"M.to tl.econ.,ituti«o«li,yof,heprovl.i„n|^of„id t^iwiao Act ThJ. 
wa. apparently the roaUoa (br doolurin« in tho MllUib ^ the 4t) Viat * R 
.hat the dutle. wor, i„,||M for the purpono of^B|t,„ue, th|ii£ar: '' 
en ly anking It- provWon. full .uore atrio.ly flHPSKu 9 of .ST 93 
^1 ^ u tt ° p" ^'^ ""■■" ««"Powcrod hnZZc purpose, ,0 provide for 
th#i|iuoof the hcenw!. apceially enumerated in thi« par. and like liecnwa, but 
Wfre BOt prohibited from regulating by liee,,*,. other matu-ra fulling within the 
scope of ,h*lr, powers, provided .uoh other roirulatory lioense. wero not for the 

^"?S VI 'S """"""• ^'"'""«'' ""' declaration in qucntion in thin Sw: 
utfl^ Vie. rt-'S, was .pplioablo ui. conflrnjatory of the duties inipOHod, and -■ 

' K. ? ^S&T '"^. '^"'''•' '" '"P""" ''"' '«^'=""° f^'P^' •» wu. inap. 
icablo to oilW»J.crc the Lcgisl-.turc hud a rigj.t to require a liecnse to be 



;? 



\ 




COURT 



lal«#lon|nihil«M Millit lf{ 




j<Oi, IM. 



"7^ 



•n I'm, 



■f^ 



P 




i|piin*l ih« l^t«iatura'«oil«|bt<*rffr*i«(i«^^theBMnin0of^n Aft pf«>»loH»iy ** "jjj*^* 
••ird I jf lUmTMltM, M) •« ta%tiii the A«l gi>od #» » poliee rwgiiiktitw, whWi « 
h»y have dcrlartU •■ A«< r«r rauing rev«nit«- While #« M'l, m in tb« «iaQ 
r H»nn «■. Tti« ( jnern, llial th*y IumI flp right l« nim rtf efiu« |y (iii« ntan*, 
I am tlUim^rd 1o Cfininiir il ■ itt«r« mlalafa or o«araig^t «f ttM fi<|l>liitiifii t<l , 
fii includad in lh« rkia of rtftfittfi liMOM* tbt unaJn iju ntt aj ^ akmild Ut>« i 
It^ji IqIiv oim B0( r/nMlrM y«N<rii »ilk iboH apMitIt/ fBttMcnilCiJ. Ajli, inrfiii- 
\,Jti)i an il (• oM( buatntaa raihtr lo plvatfact Iq*m Aal wtMR It iajMliiJMU to du 
%tn lo rnnai<icr It na having li<i effral, I hoM that a lifMMM lo mi^tH* ttrcMut 
>!^itoul<l klill 1^1 vati<l aa a ))ulio« ri<Kiilnlion,MUhougll II Miglit bi> huM roidM 
M ila profUiona (ut ralain;! ravrnuo, and Ihal if It ««r« M i^ w«tln tht pMNfof 
the I'uwikr ( Vinipny <» liava tlamiinitoil • lieenae on lh« pajBtoni of a nodtrol* 
r>'r, ami in the |m)w«« of iho lx>gi»Utur« lo havo r«(|uirfNl rho taking of «ueh 
lirrnno and iho payiA«tit for llM aania of • ni'xlSVnia (tie, and that itho objinotion 
iiindtf t(i III* validity of iho limnaa U iu>t a «uflki«nt bur to (1i« pnifWuitftlon (W (lit 
pcnnltjr. (>n<« furthi>ri)b«(;rTalion I woqld Ilka Ui lunke. Ifit it«r« if^ tli« power 
nf iht) i'fOYiuoial Ij^tti^lttluro lo raiae rtvatiue bj (ho iaauo of Uceuwaa for other 
pur))oa<<a than th,o*« enuniarated in lb« aee. H, aod auoh aa m«t§ ^tmitm $tn*ri$, 
ih<irp<^wurnf taiallon would be praclioallj onlitnitod, aa, inaflmu«h aa wlliat' thoy 
roiild nut do othcrwiae thoy could in nioat oaaaa effitot by aioitia of » tieetiM. 
Ai to the objection mndo by tho (JuiupAny that thay had rij^htii arquirad ia ih'cin 
ly Iheir ohartar, frhioh could not b« intatforad wUli by aubaequant Ingialat^n, thia ^ 
ii«, obviou*!^, an unwuud argument. Their incorporation gave thorn individuality 
with power to manufHClura and ooll gunpowdnr in Iho oanio manner as any natural 
(H'raon could do, but it did not einnipt .thorn any mora than nnnturul pvraon 
from their ahnra of the burdena of Iho atale, auoh aa might from time to tlMK) be 
lognlly iiiipo>«od on thnni aa on all pifr-tona aubj<K}t to tnintion. 

RaMhay, J. — I connur fully in the judgment to reject thia np|x>al but I differ 
from the rauona for muintaining the action in the Ciurt b«lQW| and the roaaolion 
which the judgment ia eonfirmod by thia Court. Tlio interpretutioo of wir 
conatiittlional Act prtwentx great diffiooltioa ; bat it is too important fof^a 
people of lh.%1 country lo jumttfy ua in deciding the quoationa that aria* righ%. 
Nay, more, there ahould bo a. continuity of principle in our own dcoiait^na, ai|| 
we ahould endeavor not to evndo the determinntion of tiio real quoation, eitMt 
hy mokiu^^ diatinotiona where IhorA ia no diffbronor, or in deciding on aome oth# 
queation than that in ianuc*, in order to cacapo from the logical co'hflcquonoefl of ' 
the i»m^ B|f aectiun GO, 41 Vie, o. 3 Q, it ia enacted thut "every peroom 
keepllkg tt mnfozine for |tlio "alorago of |K>wdor, or who anlla and holda for aale 
any quanttti^ of |^dor^ jimit obtain from Iho liconw inspector n liconoe to that 
effect." Soelioa 63 eiittibliahea the tariff pf duties piiyuble under the Statute. By 
R^tlpn 174) a penalty i» iuipoaed for keeping n powder magoiine without auoh 
lioilni', and by iKotion 171 it La enroled that "every building used for the i 
Rtorugo or keeping of any quantity of powder exceeding in weight twcnty^flvs 
pounds is held to be a powd«r migniine within the luconing of the law. The' 










m 







j^:; 

■^ ^'-M 



'^-mr' 



















«.- 






'2& 



'^^-. 



'i/-. 



■'}A 



" ^ 



? 



epURT OF QUEEN8' BENCH, 1886. 






A, 

. \ • . 



^kX^^:^J'^^^^^^^^ ponalty for koopin. a a,aga.lae without Buch 

^. B* U^be^w^tir''"'^ ■'''^""^ "»»* •'»'« manufactory of 

\ e. quT'^f'^*? ""^.-^^t a n'afiazmo, and, therefore i« not within the meaning of the Act. 

' ■ V fr"" '°^ *"'"''''■"■""""' ^''^'^'''J^^ To this objection it is an. 

- ^ r^!? fn " 7":? '^^"'"*'""- ' •'""""^ *'°"°" •» th..t view. A Licence 

' ' • ■ ^ /r^ n .^.'^^"'"^P^ »« "'.''''« i^ « Poli°« rcguhuion ; but this one i« not. 

-^e^ltr"' T- Tf .''"°«"«« ^^^^' section 92, adb-section 9. B. N. A. 

. r^^'^"'f.''''«^«f»''«Attorncy.Gcheral and the Queen's I,,8uranceC^^ 

• I. ", r ground taken here. It was theh said that the Act under which 

'^"'7;'"';?'.'"^"°'''^'«<'"^«Actb^taStamp4ct. Their Lordships said: 

th^.t the hcertsee .s not compelled to pay anything for the license, and. what i. 

Tt all 1^ :;• y ""'"''T^^'^ *"'"''"«''' " "''""^^ because there is no penalty 
at all upon the hcensoe for not f.king it up," etc. 1 ^rtwright, p. 127 The 

licenLtr "> ""^^^^"^"^ «" »»>« P^'-J'y for not tak/g out a license, by which 
come up, for the ackion is not to recover the revenue, but only the penalty. I 
Hcenl :"f f "^*'"« f «*'-»-"• The Powder Company could not get the 
^nZTT 7'"rf "'° ''°"^"'»^^'«" to the revenue, and the majority of the 
, ^^"'*7'^^•"n^t»>«<^"Panyforn6tdoi„gthatWhiehtheCompanycouldnotd^ 
. J™\"»'n""«°S/o an exaction, which theCourt intimates is illeg^^^^^ 

c^n vwh.eh U w.ll not deol„™ to be legal. Thisappcars to me toVan'unfair 

TIT: ^ "^ ' , "" ™"P'°' '" "•^ '»''J°"ty of the Court, and by unfair 
■ J^"'«e'yn>e«nto^ay that It is not logically permissible to deal with the^^^^^ 

^fow "anTZ r T '"'"'"■'''^ "^ ^"P"'''"' ^ ^™ *« -"«"»• The Court 
t^L^o". this Court n,a.ntam the actipn because it is for a penalty for not 

ItX ^^^''''.'* ''"*"' * P'***"' """Sazine. It is said the^ license to keep 

licen elThJ'"' *'' '"";" .""' "'''•« ^"^ <^» ^he other hand, ithink it is a 
hcense for the purposes of raising revenue by the nature of the act, and not a 

aXrUv toh f ^g'«'«tures have, must on every occasion express its 

Zr? ll ^' '^P'"'''''^ '"*''«'' 'o'-'^^' »"»'ou^h we are a statutory 

h2vtr-Krr'r'"' ««"°"^ j""^-*'"'-- TLexerciseof ottu" 

cri.r^'lr" r*^?'"'^ "'""''* '^ •S"«'«^' anda justice of the peace, who 

acts occasionaHy and w.thout the surroundings of a court of record, is obliid at 

ev^y step t« ecla.. hi« jurisdiction. So, then, it follows that thepow! ff the 

DoBioN, C. J., said this was not an action torecover\i license fee. but a feuit 

Z:ZtuJrT>:'''^''''- T'- majority ofthe Court wer of opinTon 
that the quostwu whether the Local Legislature bad aright to impose a lioeni 



/ 

■ /■'. 
-pi- 



\-:. ■■ 



-.\- 



COITRT OP QUEEN'Sf\BENOH, 1885. 



21 



The Coart ^l^* thiit the legislature had a right •"'''JIoJSm'co'' 



be did not come up here. 
Impose a penalty for storing gunpowdor, afifdthat is as far as the present decision 

The other question, as to the license fee, was n difficult one, nnil it ^pg qu*™** 
light have come up if a license had been refused, but there was no ofier liciu 
Ibr.a license. - 

Judgment confirmed. -* 

Robertson, Ritchie d; Fleet, attorneys for appellant. 

iV. ^. ^owrjOMin, attorney for respondent. ,„ . * 



COUR DB REVISION. ' 

. MO.VTBEAL, 30 NOVEMBRE 1885. ^ 

Coram: PLAMONDON, BOURQEOIS, et LoRANOER, JJ. ' 

■ ETIEiVNB PRIMEAU, ' 5 

A. . _. , V Dejiahdbvr; 

^ V8. ».. ;- ^-[' 

fiTIENNE Gtlfell^. V 



J ''• DiFBNDBOB.' 

I JuGi :— Que pour prescrire par diz ans el faire les fruits siens, il suflit que Id'^tiera-dctenteur 
ait C-t6 de bonne foi au moment de son acqjiisition ; la connailuance des vices do 
* son titre ou de celui de son auteur survenue au tiOTs-dStenteurdepuis son ■ 
acquisition fle peut Ticier sa poss ession. (Art. 2253 G.C.) 

II s'agit ioi d'uno oction hypoth^caire prise par le demandeur pour faire odn- 
Idauiner le dt^fcndeur en sa quality de ticrs-d^tenteur d'un certain immeublc- 
Jd^sign^^D la declaration, A payer un montant dedeuz cent vingt-quatro piastres 
let soixailte et cinq oebtina, <$tant moiti^ du capital et int^rSt d'une obligation ~ 
IcoDsentie le premier f^vrier 1867 par Valerie Gu^rin (un des auteurs du doman- 
jdeur) A Jean Baptiste^Primeau, fila du doinundeur. 

Le demandeur all^gue lui-m@ine que cet immeuble a ^t^ veoda par le dit 
I Valerie Gu^rin, ik Pierre Gu^rin soir frdro, le sept Janvier 1867, et qu'il a ^t^. 
[revcndu par le dit Pierre Gu^rin au d^fendeur le 14 octobre 1878. 

Le d^fendeur plaide prescription par possession utile aveo titre et bonne foi 
I tant'^ar lui qjue par son tutcur (Pierre Gu^rin) pendant une p^riode de plus de diz 
I ans, savoir : de|>uis le 7 Janvier 1867. 

Gomme il y a ea possestion utile p^r le d^fcndeur et son auteur Pierre 

I Gu^rin, depub le 7 Janvier 1867, aveo titre, le /demandeur ne pouvait r^ussir 
[di^ns sa prdsente cause qu'en prouvant la mauvaise foi. 

La possession, depuis 1867 est amplcmept prouvee. Pierre Gu^rin poss^dait 

I I a terre comme propri^taire, 4 la connaissance de tout le monde. II y payait 
Ics taxes, il votait sur cette propriety, etc. . 

D'apres I'art. 220^ O.C. " Li bonne foi se prSstime toujours, c'est i, oelai 
qui allegue la mauvaise foi ^ la prouver." 

De plu!), I'art. 2253 C. Cd^lare en tcrmcs precis qu'fl suffit que la bonne 
foi des tiers acqu^reurs ait exists lors de Vacquiaition quand bien m6me leur pos- 
session utile a'aurait commence que depuis." Le demandeur, pour, r^ussir, 
devait protiver que le d^fend^nr pu son auteur ^tait de maavaise foi le' 
7 Janvier 1867,^ date de I'acquisitiont de cctte propri^te. O'est-^dire que le 



.■<i 



./ 



'- t" 



r- 



22 






E. Primeau 

T8. 

E. Gu^rio. 



COUB DE KEVISION, 1886. 

■ -*- 



demandcur devoit prouver qu'a ootto dato-li Pierre Guprih .„.„,* . 

bait n^ccasairemont au deLanlur ' -<'-"-'r^q"o cette prcuve ia,ou,. 

de.!;:„dcur'!r' .'*'"V'=^"'^"'/ ^^^ P^-er que Pierre Gudrin. I'auteur du 
qr. n 'ir"" "'"° 'T''"^"° ■' y '^ quatorzea„.s,s;voir'troisou 

c:: nLrt;.r3:^;,r?rrp T^i eV~ -- 

AutnritJfc/l.. .1 > i > , ^. \^. J., p. ^a, AV, Li. C. J. p. 227. 

Autont^du deinaDdcur appelant 

N;.!"' C^e Ci,U 22k" °"^ ■""' '■"'• ''"»■ ""•« «"" '•"' 2265 
45fLi'b„I'^.*'; ^' ^' *'• '"'''° "'■ '^"""'"- '''"P'»"'e' pn^iriptioD, No. 927 p. 



qu'oti fxerce, etc. No. 931. 



y;io»ia««5,-08s«(V, pour I'appelant. 

7V»<(W, CharboHneau eVLamothe, avocaU do I'intiind. 



Jugement 




V 



COURT OF REVIEW. 

MONTREAL, 30th NOVEMBER, 1885. 

C6ram Johnson, PLAMONDqN & Gill, J.J. 

DOWNIE vs. FRANCIS. . 

^Johnston, J^Tlii. wa. an action by the payee against the Laker of a 
p onnssory n9te for $250.1 The defendant pleaded want of con iaer„«on tit 

l/r* /'^«P!="°'ff'-4"'^<I generally. Prima facie, the onds of proof Was on 

owed if ^^^^^^^^^ ''^. •^^?'"?'''^ ""' -^ ^"«=- value, th'e note L.f 

61 owed. |he action was nmintuioable oa the allegatipn that the note was 

note I .self wotild have been a good note without the words " for value n^ceivll" • 
Sf/'sl TT'"'""t^^'^"' if it was denied, would halLr;!;^^ 

fn^ouafd ,!u^^^^^^^^^ "• ^r'-^"- '^-"•' P- '^'"-^ Hurt vs. McPherson, 
in ixuouard lettre de change, 66-in note to Art. 2288 0. C "A bill or no J 

imports consideration, and the holder is therefore presumed to havfgi en vlt 

tts t l^'^^rr' "''^"°^' '-'' '''' -^ •>« cites the authori 
ties in a note. Therefore it is a matter of evidence onlv The nloinUff 

examined on/a,7. et articles and also as a witness certably dc^s n^ adm t th ^ 

here was no consideration, but quite the contrary. Ho Ls Tt !i l^u 

dera.ls, but he swears positively that consideration was dven and iZ hfS- 

boardeAnd paid all the pe.onal expenses of the deSr^Xtill^ 







he received " 



COURT OF REVIEW. 1885. 



23 



JThat mny or may not bo true, and of course it may be said that he cinnot 

Imake evidcnoe for himself; but, atoll events, it does .not support the defendant's 

Iplea, and it was on him that the burden lay in the first instance of proving want 

I of consideration. -The most that cm be said of the evidonco on his behalf is 

that it threw some sort of suspicion on tho question of consideration. Yet the 

plaintiflF seems to have been in a great hurry to prove tho considoration, for he 

was the first to proceed to the evidence. He examined Mr. Lariotot and others, 

the first proving that the plaintiff supported tho iiefondant for two years. lie 

Iswcars most positively to the fact, and that the defendant himself always 

pckn9w]edged it. Ho explains ala^ the blotted appearance of tho face of the 

note, Vhich was cause by folding it while the ink was still wet. The evidence 

of Mr. Crankshaw, Mr. Shcej-Tind Mr. Laflamme also tended to support the fact 

of consideration having been given. The plaintiff js entitled to recover under 

the evidence. Even if he had adduced none, I could not say the defendant had 

shown want of consideration for tho note. It is not a case where there is a 

conflict of evidence, so much as a case where the presumption arising from the 

faq|B of the note is very slightly attached on onesi/le, and strongly reinforced on 

' ti^ other. . • 

DownieALanctot, (or plaintifi^. ' Judgment reveled.. 

Gh». S, "Biu-roughs, fat dckad&nt. :..--- 



SUPERIOR "COURT, 16S5. 

MONTREAL, 30th NOVEMBER, 1885. 
^^oram Johnson, J, 
THE CITY- OP MONTREAL^ ' 



P. A. A 



vs. 
DORION, 



AND 

MARY J. E. MORRISON, 



Plaimtiff ; 



DsrENDAIT ; 



Opposant ; 



AND 

THE eiTY OF MONTREAL, - 
„ , / ; Contestant. 

46 r^ct. c. 78 sec n-Notice to he published in the Official Gazette-How 
many times! 

Per CubIam.— The opposanfs property was seized by the sheriff in payment 
of taxes and the opposmt seeks to set aside the seizure on the ground of insuffi 
cient observance of the requirements of tho law, 46 Vic., c 78 see 11 That 
Act says that the city treasurer is to deliver to the sheriff every yeaf statement 
iSTi! 1 ^''"rPt"''^ upon/which taxes are due; and the sheriff shall: 
wuhout the formahty of a procif verbal of seizure, proceed to sell the^^fteJ 
giving noticfydunng two mont Win the Quebec Official Gazette.. The sheriff took 
the proceed.ng,«,uired of him>y th^ Act ; but only gave notice'i^hree times durin- 
the two months previous to the sale. The Quebec Gazette is published weekly \ 



\ 



Dowaie 

va. 
Francis. 





~ ■'■•' 


-■ 


■■■■■■'. .'isi 




■- i 

■ ''A 


, 






# ■ ■ 


y 


-■- % 



./ -:\'\ 



24 



SUPERIOR C(^KT, 1886, 



^B City of bclicvo we ore held to know that officially; if not, it is admitted of record. The 
^y»^*»' proprietorship, of the property sciied is also admitted, therefore there ia only the 
P. A.A^Dorion question of the sufficiency of notice. Tlw language of the Statute may give rise to 
J. K. Mor." ^®'''>"' criticism ; but, ludikin^ at the obvious meaning of the language used ; and 
^^d "'**' ^ '!'* ^^^*^*' °^ ^^° provision in question, which was that of pubiieity, I hold 
The City of H'at notice during two months means notice as often a§ the fiazette is published 
ontreal. during that time. Tliere have been decisions in the same sense in cases^having 
analogy to this one. ' Tliere is one of Hope, appellant, and Tianck, respondent, 
(18 L. C. J. p. 26), but as fip-^as it is intelligible from the report, it held that 
under the Insolvent Act requiring notice ^'or one month in a newspaper, it was 
♦- nerasBBflty to give the notice as often as the/newspaper appeared during that time. 
I was referred by tlie counsel for the city to sec. 8 of the Act of 1879, eh. 63, 
which say^ that " no objection founded upon form, 9r upon the omission of any 
„ /^ _ formality, even imperative, shall prevail in any proceeding respecting municipal 
matters,, unless Bubstantiall injustice would be done by rejecting such objection." 
I do not regard the notice as a mere formality, but as a very essential proceeding 
to inform real property owners that their property is going to be diflpoKd of in 
this summary m anner, andXamquite^guffrlsfaouia do substantial injuHtioa if I 
^rejected the assertion of her rights by the proprietress in the case, 

Opposition maintained with costs. ' 
. ^. iSojr, for the plaintiff. 

JUadore dk Bruchesi, (or the offoaant 



A 



tl 



PLAniTin ; 
Difihoamt; 



COURT OP REVIISW, 1885. 

MONTREAL, 30TH JUNE, 1886. 

Coram Johnson, C. J., Toeranob, Lobanqer, J.J, 
^ - CHs; h.doogalL, 

■* J. B.. BRDN, 

\ ' ' ■*»» 

^" CHS. ROUSSEAU IS guAHTE. Opposakt. 

HiLB :— That an opposition to the seizure of the effects of a^ inaolyent debtor filed by a 
^ trustee or assignee under a voluntary, assignment by said debtor, even though it 

alleges the acqniesence of the plaintiff therein, will be.dismissed on a demurrer on 

the ground that the opposant has no standing, and shows no right or tiUe to'the 

said property, being only the mania/air« of the creditors. 
Per Curiam : This cause was inscribed in review by the opposant from the 
judgment of the Superior Court, Mr. Justice Doherty, dismissing his opposition 
to a seizure made by plaintiflFof the defendant's goods, said opposition alleging 
that the defendant had made a voluntary assignment of his estate and property 
to the opposant, fot the benefit of his, defendant's, creditors, and f b*t the plaintiff 
bad accepted and acquiesced in said assignment. 

The plaintiff demurred to the said opposition, on the ground that the defendant 
had no standing before the court, being simply the mandotofrc of the oredi- 
tors, and that he showed no right or title to the property seised, that the 



■^J 



COORT op review, 1885. 



2S 



and 

C. Rou8de«a 

ei qiiat. 



cession de bitns made by the defendant to the opposnnt siinply constituted the G. U. DougMl 
latter the attorney or mandatary of the defendant and eccditors acceptinp, and , ,.*»„ 
that the oppos«nt had no intepest in the present cause and no right to file tlie ' '"** 
present opposition. The plaintiff contesting.oited the follonine authorities • 

Art. 19 C.C.1». . 

Cheralt »«. Deohanta! & Thorans, 8 L. C. J. p. 85. 

Brown vs. Pinsonncault, 3 Supreme Court Rpts. p. 102. 

Tourangeau M. Dubeau & Ross, T.Si, 10 Q. L. R, p 92. «-- 

lioss r«. Florant& Molleur (Lorangor, J.) 3 Apr. 8t C.C. 
Withellt)*. Young & Michaud, 10 L. C. R. p. 149. 
Cummings vs. Smith, 10 L. C. R. p. 122. 

McPurlane vs. Roy, 7 L. C. R. p. 77. / 

Burljind vs, Moffatt, judgment of tlJe Supreme CmH,-— / 

Demolombo on. Contj-aet, pp. 36 & seq. 

Authorities of the opposant : 7. L. N. 182 ; 6. L. N. 123 ; To. ^, L. R. 92 
The Court of Review unanimously confirmed the judgment of the Superior 
Court, holding that the demurrer was well founded. , 

Jttiljjment confirmed. 
Cooke & Brooke, for plaintiff contesting. \ 

C. Lebefuf, for opposant. ■ ' \ 



COUR DU BANC DE LA RBINE^ 1864. 
(En Appel.) 

MONTOfiAL, 1 MARS 1864. 

Presents :N|i'hon. Sir L. H. Lafontaine, Juge ; Duval, Meredith, Mon- 

'. DELET, BaDQELT, JJ. ^ 

, \ ■ t ' HENRI MONGEAU, 

Demtndeur en Cour Inferieure , 

: Apiilamt : 
, IT. ■ ■ ' 

DAME ARCHANGH nUBPO, 

{D^tndtTitte tn Cour Ji\f4rieurt\ 

iRTIlliB. 

Vmtt de la chest d'autrui. — Art. 1599 C. C. L'immesulle acquis durant la 
communauti est censi Vavoir iti b, mlmeV actif de la communauti, hmoins 
dunepreUve contraire. {Art. 1273 C. C.) 

Le jugcment dont est oppel a 4i6 rendu pa^ la Cour Sup^rieure pour le Bas- 
Ganada, si^geant a Montreal, le 18 fiSvrier 1863. Ce jugcment expliqne suffisam- 
ment les faits de la cause : , ^ 

'• La Conr, aprds avoir entendu les parties par leurs avocats k^t le m^rite de oette 
" «ause, eiamin^ }a procedure, les pieces produites et le t^moigiage et avoir sur le 
" tout d^lib^rd, consid^rant qu'il r^sulte de la prenve produite dans cette cause 
" que le quince juin mil cent cinquante-buit, le demandear est devena adjudi- 
" cataire et propri4taire en vcrtu d'une vente par le sh^rif du distriot de Mont- 




\'y^,'r.r]:wfj^i!f*s\ 



-4 



26 



COUR DU BAN0 DE LA REINE. 1864. 



que parfion festiinicnt sofenncl rrou dpuiin* Aff,„ 11 t> . 

•' t4«.oi„8 ot cn date du dlx scpteXe 111.!^ • - ^"80". notairo public ct 

-te dc»a.tor c. p., oil. .che,« "°Zl^ !^?;, rr T'™"''" f" 
" cause, « Ifeal ct plcinemenl iuMia.hl ? ' " , ' "'" P™'""« «" «"'« 

- «., »'.«eau:r;::rj."eZt;'r'' -" """ "-' ■"'-'^='• 

Daigneau, ou plusieur^s d'cntre <„.t «„. «,,^..,._. .?""' •*'*« ®'>P*'»e 



i 1* , . 


/ ■■ 




' ■ 




cu&j uui; lor 


mciiement sign 


fifie taut aa deman- 


k « 


, 








'- 










#-, — ^ — 


.# 






• 


^ 


^ 


, .. « , 


* 


■ / 




.. "* 




" '. -■, . " 


' ■ . ' 








-. >" 


V. ■ ■ ■ 




---■;■ ; " -' ■ ' "*'■ ■ ■ 



' '^®F!^>;' ' Pff^«!l!^'Jl^f^M|i^T^ 



COUR DU BANC Dl^ LA RBENB, 1884. 



27 



buc. 



^ 



"clun .!! r' "'"'""^ ^"''"="'° ^'^P'*'"^" "•" '""'««»» '«>'»"tc-D.„/» „^ 

"Lil """••^!"'; -»«"■•« «" P««»c«Hion do lour, parte rcspcclvcs du dit un- "'" ''"■ 
" aul nlJf '^"r"™^"» ^° '" •*"« Sophio Dulgnca,., ot ^u'ils foront to«, 
autre procd.ld« qu'.l, jugoront n<5oo8,uirc«, „ux Bus su-ditos j. con^id<5r«nt quo 

" ^Z ^ZTTT^^^T '^" °'-^°""' "P"'*^"" °' f"'''^"-' •» Jomandour 
^^ . est pa, fond6 co droit, do r^olamcr do la drffondoreiiio ,uiou:.e p.rtio du prix ' 
^^ do vonto co«m.o .1 Pa fuit p,r la pr(Jsento doma.do en offn/nt ,^Mon quo la dito 
" JZZ7 r r J"™"': *™"^''^° »' i"q"i<^'<5'o, on l*W<«.si6n, jouissanco 
^ pronner l.ou pla.ddo par la ddfendcrossc, «nnuilo lo dit ^oto do vcnto du quatre 

UntT^ur la n.o,t,d .ndmH, d« d^mai/dour quo pour la moi.ie indivi.0 du dit 
jn moublo. afferunto au, dita I6,..tairi.s univorsoU en propndtd, do la dito 



. Au 8outi..„ do 8CS prdtcntionH, 01 p:,|r nnaloglo au ous qui nous ocfiupo, I'ap. 
Fl«nte,te:,Hoory,Vol.2,livro4,cl»r6,Pagc8 317et3r8 ' ft 

Vou,. eo quo dit oot auteur en' disou ant la question do savoir si I'a'cq.&ur 
d un bien 8ub.t.tu4,|Oat ogirpour lUsolution du contrat avant i'ouvcrturo do 
la suDMtitution, - ^ -, i . 

" Dans lo droit on distingue si lo ve|ideu/ sovait quo la chosovenduo par lui ' 
npparte„a.t i autru. co dent l-aohotfur n'avait eonnaissantfo, en oc oas i oon- 
^^ rat do vonto pou fitro rd.ob avant' n.6mo quo I'aohoteur «oit.,inquidr^ et lo 
vcndeur oondumn^ aux doq»mages e« i„,d.6t3 envors I'achoteur, pour I'a voir 
' tromp^avccconnaiasanoe cieoiuse. 

^ " Muisquand lo vendeurlu-a. pas cUnaissanoo quo la ohoso appartient ^ ua 

" et a,;!^ d'^^-Jg^e encore si 1'aohete.^r est inquiet^ aussi.ot apros lo eoutrat 

et avnnt quo d'avo.r paj,^ lo prix, Jl rfe pout Otro cnntruint au paiomont ^ 

" eXtV- ^^"^^"^ "'f^^-^^ '- 'J--' bonpo et suffi.anto oaJtion do ^ 
rendre le prix en oas d'dvictioi) " » tf* 

aoalogae 4 celle qui nous occupo, dit CO qui suit, savoir- 

" l^vlT^''" ■ "■'"■ '^ •*"? •'"" ''«'1«'«'''°»' P«"t «ans doute d'abord nppelor 
^ son vendcur'en as..stanoe do cause, ,nais il no pent demandor sa gara^tie 

"ctlarestftutionduprixqu-apr^ladepossessioncntidre." . ' 
." Si n^unmoins des apr^s la veuto et avant lo paiement du prix, I'acqu^reur 
par le trouble qui lui est donn. pr^voit uno ..iotion in..incaVco ^utur' 
n pourra etr. contraint au paieme^i du prix oa do ce qu'il en reste, qu'lT 
criarge,que le vendeur baillera Caution." ' , ■ 

„„S^'''f " r'^ ^"" T''"^' *''^*^"''' P»"« W dans son opinion, il y a 

uJr/tTc r "" ''^ "'^''"'" ^P'°'"'«™^"' traitesetdiLt^a'pa ce - 
auteun, e le cas qu, ,ous occupo ; et on eflFot I'appelant souniet quo lo, obser- " 
vatcns faites par ces diff^rents .uteurs, dans un sens favbrable 4 la vaHdittdt 



• 




1 -..v. 



y*- -y,■'|;^g^i^■^^^, ^hw<^^ 



28 



_COUR I)t; BANC DK LA REINE, 1804. 



"'% 



flpp«rtor,a..t A «u,mi -ubstuuda, u,«,« bio,, do veLtes do bieo. 

• " daas 1* cLoso ct parrnnl A 1 h . "^ ' ''"''"''"^' H' '° droit qu'il « 

__- " Cc.^ poun,uoi si quel ' ; :: eJdut^';'- "^^ '"'•'•''• '« ^'''- ^"P^ 
" t: nt quo/no !Xr ;/""'""'"^ •*•' "'«' "-MHO ao.iou con.roli, 

" contnt ,io vc„„ a'e Jt p^s d! re dreT" f " '''''^' '^"'^ ''"''J^t Pr^eis du 
" do I'on „.e,t.e en possession ot I d,t I ^ ^ P^°P' •«^'-' "'-« «i-pJen.c„t 
. " Do cetto thdorio- on Zclu i „' " '^A^'-^^*'- «' dvib.ion. -. 
" misc." - "•"' ''"' '" '"^"^ J« J" cl'oso d-uutrui dtuit pcr- 

Et plus loin Trop'ongajouto: 

" xNous a|j6„s ddmontrd aillours que le Code Pivil ni . 

" naturel que le r/roit rommn et Fa J: ~S''< P^"? oonformo au droit 
" "it d^sol .is pour effet DrI-« H '''•'"'/'•««f'"X a entcndu que la veoto 

- Troplon^diterolt^fX ^"'""^^^^^^^ 



^fiiftmimsi^m<«-j'fn(w^ ' 



COUJl DU BAXC DE LA REINE, 1804. 



M 



prpolamo dans 



buo. 



»<•».« 1. Code, ii M SLLT^l. . 'T""' ""'"" ■"••"'■ i»i »"' ««"■■ 

Et <ou« CO ropfort „„,rc l„i ,t„i„t,i„ „„ veno, f„„iil„ j . . , 
duj™dcnr,oi.ela(«a„f'o,.nl',.™„^ """" "'"'<• '""Mr J"«nl«go la pmition 

.»i»»t.,;.,„r,: ' *""' ""^ ""P«»»i«».,l« 0»"C0.r, de, fcii. 

■..V:«i; ''"■"'"■" "'• "" •"■ '"™ "•P'-P'I'i^.lU" lons..a,p, .prt,l„d*«,d. 

S' 2!;^l'° ''"'f*?*°'^°»"'"'P»i''. J""' prop-OS de„«' . '' 

..».^.c,updo I^lo™t^'2?:i,T "" .""'°»»'""»' il "• ton-bo p., 
n..tio»doo<,gra„J princiM L ' '''*"'",'"'' "«""P'«"»»« P". J"™ r.ffir. 

»t«o Mongoao vi.J. oB .3 1 A '*^?P""- """S'"", «.t i octfe <p<,q„., 

P"i«,».d.°„,j;;irirdua " '^r* ■"' t''""- ■» «"~".v 

h "Wn. do 1. p»p,i« ' °" '"'■'"'"' '"■ ''"«''° P'»Pri*air. ot . eu ^ 

^ N.»™. Do.i«„, ,„, xo, Vo.bo.djadica.loo, p,,«,te, ,ro 0. 2, CO10..0., 
l)eci.sion des Tiibunaux vol 9 nno« Qa»i t i ^ 

f»-«frai. do «, immcubiril ; ! ^ """^^ ''° " We-^-ouU", ot ' 

1,0 telamont no comporlo auog.. .„b,tii„tio„. C'o.1 »n ^ . 



/ 



i^V. Vol. 3(pi: 



.Jv 






30 



CaUll DU BANC DE LA RBINE, 1864. 



II, Mong(>aii 
D»w A . I)u 



I 



ii 



«lmpl« djB»lt d'u^ufruit qui e*t ao^iord*? ;a'npH«nt Mongwu no p«iH jnoiniK 
.doToriir propridlaire dot biona immoubluH do Mrne Mongc.u, niflrho pnr la iiiort 
do tous l«N nulmtitn^ii, ortr ion litre oat prrfonirc--n n'ont qu'uHufruitior. C'wt 
A tort quo rappolunt pr«Stondiu», en Cour Inf^Arituro, trouvor uho Rubiititution 
dhiblio pnr 0.. teiitnmcnt. I/appoUnt oonnaJMait aoa droila quand il a vopdu 
'•iHtuinrublo d riDtiini<c. II no pouunit ni Ion JKnorcr, ni nirfconnotiro U n^turo 
do son titro ii cot Immcublo. Lo quntrc wptonibro 1H61, il i-avait quiil n*<Jlai» 
propridtniro quo d'une moitid ||idiviKO do l'en>plaocnicn». Cepondant, il en a 
rendu In t(.t/ilif(! i^ lintinKJe, a'on dt<oliirHnt lo prftprlstairo en vcrtu du (itre du 
»bt<rir. II n fiiitootto vonte nvco Karontio. Avnut nuo l'iatim<5o no frit poiwomion do 
l'e,i;ipli.ort^t.nt, cllo a dinoncc< H I'nppolant lo troublo nuqu'crollo<(tnitcxpoi»<«o, ot 
roppclnrtt, J-nn-^donncr ATintiiutJo rawiurnnoo qu'il <5tait vrainiewt propridtmro'do 
In totriiit«S do rcniplncoincnt m question, offre do donnorcautiou & rintiinoo qu'elle 
ne aera jamaiH troublto on rcvendication par qui co que 8oft."i^;,intim^ i^nornit 



,««nt Hon achat, quo I'appobmt n'.5tait propri<5tairo quod^J^'Bioltidiodiviae do 

!c» ciroonitanoei^ iVK»l«nt po»» ftit'il 



f'emplaccniont qu'il lui vei.duil. Sous oca ciroonatanoex^ P»^|ant poU nitpil 
vcndre valubloinent la tot.ilit<S de cet emplnceniorit, Ior«q»1l aavait n'Ifro pro- 
pridtaire quo d'uno moilitf indiiiso? Peut-il forcer l'intin,<J A "maiptenir cettc 
rente on lui donnnnt caution qu'ollo ne aora janiaia troubl<Jo? L'uppelant admet 
dans aes r<5j)onsc8 aux articulation* de fuit de rintiiu<5e, que lea indiridus njen- 
tionnt's au prntot laij xur lui et I'intiinde, aont dos novoui et ni^ooa de Mmo 
Monjicau, appelA. .V rccueiliii; la propri«<t"d Jos biena immeubles de oetti) dernidre, 
aprt^s Ja n.ort do luppelaut. Cottc inise enlyiWure jujtifie rintim<5e dene paa 
avoir priH possession de remplacemont, onr*8i''?TllB I'eftt fait, die s'exposait ^ 
^ouffiir d^s dou.nmgcs con8i(?<5.nblos plus tard. "Les propricifaires, en I'dvin^anf, 
lui aurnilmt oppostf cctto miso on deinoure qui la constituait.posseaaour de 
niauvniso; foi, on la pcivant du rembourwraent des imponseS »t am<$liorations 
qu'ell* auruit pu fairA, sur co terrain. L'dviction oat certuine.la menace du' 
trouble est positive. , L'intimdo a d^ait do rt«p6ter le montaut do son prix do 
vSiite, flproseviction, mais m la succession Hongeau est insolvable, I'intimde CouVt 
le tmque de tout perdro. Si Ton pout vendre la choso d'autrui, faut-il 4u moins ' 
«tre en tHat d'en fairo lu tradition d'uno nmui^re valuble. L'appelant no pouvait 
*tre de bounc foi. quand il a ddclard queji^w bicn lui appartenait, mais Tedt-il 3td, 
oek ne le c nstituc pas propriotaire. *' '-., ■ ■ 

Cochin, vol. 5, page 656, rapporte la caus^'do Dolle Ferrand contro Ics 
b^ritiers Saviard, oii il fi'ajfit de savoir si •' le vrai propriotaire peut perdro soD 
b.en par la rente qu'eu fait un tiers." Les biena de la Delle Ferrand avaient 
4t4 vendus sans droit. Lauteur, A la p.-.go citOc, dit : " On supposera si I'on 
" veutipour lemoment.qu'fls se croyaient propriOtairos, etqu'ils lecroyaient de 
'• bonne fpi, mais cnfin ila ne I'etaient pas, tout le monde en oonvient. Or, pour 
" vendre le bien d'autrui, suffit-il de so croire propriotaire? Suffit-il quo lo 
" vendeur et I'aoqudreur goicnt de bonne foi, ct cette crreurqui leur est commune 
" a-t-clle autant do force que- la v<5ritO? On ne voit pas ce qui pourrait appuyer 
" un pareil paradoxc: la propridtO, ni lo'droit d'en disposer no depend pas do 
*' I'opinion, o'edt la rdalitO du droit dtabli par les titres ou par la possession que 



r" t Wi ,--««" » ff""^ '^m^ 



)■ 



""^IIP^ 



_COim DU BANC m LA. REir^K, 1864. 



»l 



tP^ ^ 



" que%«. bonne foi c,«'il «.U «,u.o„u. n Iv'io" n, ! i."' T ' '''^'"'' "^^ °- A- D- 
" ...fliMono po. pour v«„drc. ni no.., 'ZaITJ^'"' '"" '^ r^'^'^' ' " - "«■ 



" ..iflit done po. rour van/r. ni "";'"'""» P" "n «••« 'lo propri.<t.5 ; il „o 

" coa,e„t«mc„t do c „i J en 0. 7' '""'".'"'""' '" «'-° '^••"^'"« — lo 
" ".fnt du propria T JI . '^ '""'"' "" P*'"' P""' •""" '« """•'"to- 

«lro Mluble on l,( ,i |i„,i„,/„ 1^ "TT '«""™ ■"" 1«PP«I«« PO»»Mt 

wyendioatiod. Apr«s h mart d. 1'^ . ! ?• "^"^ *'"'"'* "°"»" «" 

ractionderc.e„di;at:aLp;p^^^^^^^^^ ^7'^'-- «tt«ndre 

vendue. Cepenlt Pothtr ",'" ' ""''"'*'""' ^" P«"<'«"'>'' ^o la chL 

v^^pendant, Pothier suppose le vendeur de bonne foi Dono s'il n w 

Cod. N.p„W,., „,. 1599.-_Col. d. 1. L„„i,i.„., .rt, 2427 
j™pl.»g, v.n,, „. 230, 23. .. 236.-6., ,„,. „^.a, p.g. 208, .„ ,..«. 

,- ■■ ■ - ■ \- . ' - r ,^< . ' ■ ■■ 
C^:4rcAa«ia«ft.avpcatdol'appeIant J«S«tneDt cnfirmtf. . 

^«rea«. 0«,-m«r«<^apfca«,aTocatsdcrintim^. . 



/ 



. \ ■■ 



•#: 






VI 



81 



COVRt *0F QlIi«N'8 BRNCH, 1^68. 



■ ■«, 



fe^ 



COOKT or QIJKKNH IlKNCII. 

UONTRKAIi, »TN KRI'TRUBIR, IHflS. 
Coraiti Tb« Hod. C.J. DuVAL, XyARON, J., IhlVMMOND, J., llADaLir, J., 

LUKR MOORK, 

^ ■' __ AmLLAKTi 

DANIEL UrrTERHj 

( P<!ftn<liinl inlA0 tturl bttotr,) 

RVHfONDIIIT. 

Cont'nt€t nf$ale—Miverjf <»/ ihi ijomU—In tribal mut goodt nut ilelivtreJ 
rtntnin ttt tkt riik of ihel buiftr. 
— Tbi* MtioD «M brougbt to recover $9a0.91 a* (bo bnluiiee of ibe price of » 
quantity of a butter bou^^lit by tlio roNpouJotit from thu appolljiit, an<l wa« - 
diaiiiiisod. ^ — 

Tbe dnoliiratiun autH up a4iul«! of 2ti8 paolta^ca of buit>>r by tbo plaintiff to 
tbe dcfoodant, at Montreal, on tbo 13tb of Ootobcr, 18G6. 

It alleged u1m> Hint tbe dulivery wuh tn bo niadu iit plaintiff'a atoro, aitd tbat 
tbo defendant employed one John ('auipbclt to wcigb tbs butter, wbich was all 
aold at 16^ oonta per pound, ciccpt tbo 38 packagoa marked '* J, If.," Wbich 
were to bo paid for at 15} oentit per lb. ; tbat tbo defi-ndant roooivcd and took „ 
away tbo three lota of 167, 13, and 8 paekngcs first above mentioned, mokiug ia 
all 188 packagoa, and paid tbe huui of 92, 4:t4.0K, wliicb ia tbo prcoiao price cf 
tbcse lota at tbo ratca obargcd in pluiutifl's aoeoubt. 

Tbe deolar&tion also alleged tbat *' ns to tbo 38 parknnra marked J. IT. and 
' tbo 42 packagea marked W. W., ultbough tbo name Wcro lo weigbcd and dc- 
" liverod, tbo. dofcnd&ut butb not taken them an-.'iy from tbe store of tbo 
" plaintiff.'wboro tbe aame still remain nt tbo rink of the defondaut." Tbe 
declaratioa also contained a count for goods sold ond delivered. Conclusion 
for 99'^OM. ■■' 

Tbo defendant by bis plea ollegod that true it was bo bad ogrced with tbe 
plointiff for tbo purcbosp of 2G8 packages of lucrcbantablo butter, of which tbe 
plaintiff showed him Fovorul packages, and represented tbo trholo wcro of tbe ' 
aame lot. and quality; that be, tbo dofendunt, bad received the first four lots 
mentioned in plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, in all 188 packiige.s, which wcro weighed ■> 
by John Campbell, for tho defendant, and piiid for ut tbe prices agreed upon and 
obargcd, in nil 82,434.08, as credited in the plaintiff's account, wbich last-men- 1^ 
tioncd puckago.<] wcro roolly not in contest in the cause. 

Q^hat OS to the remainder of the butter tho plaintiff oould not roointain his 
action, as he had never dolivered or tendered the Hbuttcr, as ho was bpund to do ; 
that plaintiff should have sued to compel the defendant to tako delivery and pay 
tho price, tendering the butter, or sued in damages f>r breach bf tlio nllcged 
agreement to f'cceive and pay for the batter, or have sold tbo butter and suod for 
the difference in price, and could not.maintain an action for goods sold and dc- 



^ '^ 

* 



T, 






!ia^' 



copnf OP QUTOira Mmi(m, ms. 



II verm] wjrifA Im •.Jb,'|u«,1 ,|„ „^, __,,^ Z ", , ._. " •— 

U.o.|.H^l ri..-r before or aH,, VncZT P'''?'"^* «"»» P<»«-»ilo». -d «ol.L»l., M^ 

•he b.U,«r wo, found ,<, b Jf td ou liil. T'"' .7"*' ''" """•'"•»'- 

or reoa,^ .b. portion of Z;r,l; . „ 1*?^'' '" ""» •"^'""•"J 'o wei«b 

been offored or .o„a.,r«J bj the duiuV.ff 1 f. [ * »'»"'^'. ^-^on if it had 

«» P.J U^. .urn dem,.ndedf '""'"'"f '""' <">»'' tho dofo,.da«t be oondc«.„d 

i«"""*'''''/""'""»/l'<W„,Uofy|od . 

I no aiiiwors of tho nlMlntiir - . • /» v 

-ti-. i.u.«u„h .-the ttrwa7;ei^^^^^^ • — 

defendant, rl.k. „ud th.^thrpr: t^t^^i't ", '"" ^'*'"'*'' "'--'' ^» ' 

Ihe quality of the butter which w, e«»!i„' , '^^''f'/'^''""'"''"''"" «• ^ 

The judgment of th. Court J^ w X rll .7"' '^"™ *''" •""'-^• 

•ted ; Cun-ldermg that tho pf« ..t.Twa Z„d ^ u- " ^''*^ °'"«'rel,db,r- 
defe„dan»,.ndbylaw,todeIirerhi :ro.W . ^ •"' '^•'""«''» ""^ '»•• 
t«blo butter, of the i Jp i" : J 1^: 7*"^'^"^ ^^ 

-.donee in the oauae. aeoio^ ,.„. pS ;',„': „:rd"a:d ''° ''"''"«' ""'' 
»»•• butter by hin m.jd to defendant wu, aou^d . J . """"^'^ »'•" -H 

tbo butter «,IJ .t tho «a,no price wla ^ "1 io 7°'>»"'-bK .„d that .1 
ed; Considoriug th..t it ia proved ^t.?:„Vjr-'^r'''''°'' " "P'-nt- 
""? cauao that the thirty-eight packaKetof butJ" . /I'''""''* '•'•^""^'i ia 
two paokagoa parked W. W., and wtioh d r """"''*"* *'• ^- ""^^ »»»• forty. 

;a.d package, of butter the defendant i^riuti^ ?"*"' '"'''""'' ^ '««••-• 

the defendant, «, .oon aa he ■beoan.e wl ha 1 r* '^'""'''""'•^ ^^at 
"ore not of tj.e quality stipulated for a«Ld unl ^ ^'^'«" '^ Gutter 
I a.«tiff and stopped the weighing of th2i!M"K ^"'^ P""'"""^' "o^'fl^J the 
the eighty paekagoa ohove «.elioned Ltr d I I T^ "'""^ ''^ ••-->« 
ConaideriDg ,h„t tj^o plaintiff-, aetiouTfor lod u ''•''''^''' ^ •''"""id; 
tJegood«,towiVthe«idpaekagi^buSL*^'"''*r^^''"'«"^"^ ^^ 

'0 pn»ent aetion, was Ler d^I^^^" h!^T ^ '''•°'' » '«^ «>r4n ^ -- 
Pl-.ntiff bath not previous to thol 2^„'io^ of he 1 T' '"'"« ''''' ^^ 
doeUration «„d ^emande offered or tenrred hf T* '""*"•' "" ^'^ >»« 
^.ckages of butter nor any part thereof anJS-!. ''^'«-»«»'«'onod eight, ' 
jUinti^s aetion is wrongVbLthfc^^^^^^^^^^ 

dismiss the plaintirs i^tion with eosts; dTJlVt «"d«»co -dduoed. doth ; • ,' 
4he attorneys of the saiSdefendadt." '" *" **'^"- A- * 0. KobertsoD. . ( 



L J 






■><..: 



? 



% 



^.-j::X 



en 



<*)*A» 



d 



%■ ■ \--4 • 






■\ . 



84 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868. % 



; Luke Moore 

and 
D. Butten. 



i|; 



> 



i 



Wi 



. ^■ 



In rendering the judgment appealed from, the hon. Judge mnkes the following 
remarks : \. , 

It appears in this ease that the defendant, on^e 13th October, 1866, called 
at plaintiff^ store in Montreal, to purchase a quantity of butter. The plaint! 
sent on^ of bis clerks to show defendant the butter, there being 268 packages i 
all ; some in the cellar, and sdme in other parts of the premises. The clerk 
opened- a few, about 8 or 10 of them, which the clerk tested in the presence of 
the defendant, obt of the whole generally, and the price per lb. was agreed upon, 
and the butter purohus6d. Campbell, a weigher of butter, weighed a large part 
of it for the defendant, and within a few days 188 packages were received by 
the defendant, which were. paid for at the price fixed. « 

When Ciimpbell was proceeding, on the 17th October, to weigh a lot of 38^ 
packages, the defendant saw .tlie quality' of butter whi^ was turned out of the 
packages and ordered Campbell to stop weighing, saying the butter ^as bad, and 
nothing but grease. Campbell accordingly stopped v^cighing at that time. 

Some time afterwards (on the 25th October) the plaintiSf sends for Campbell, 
who weighs the rest of the butter at plaintiff's eiRpense, and an invoice is sent 
by the plaintiff to the defendant, who refused to pay. The plaintiff then brings 
this action for $930, being the price of the butter not received, stating in his 
declaration the butter to be in his store at the defendant's risk.. The plea 
raises the point that the action should not have been brought for goods sold and 
delivered, but either to enforce the contract, or for damages, but it is not 
necessary to decide as to. the form of the action. I might get over the question 
of form, if it were not for other considerations. 

' The plaintiff weighed the butter without notice to the defendant, and som6 
,ten days after the defendant had refused i^ on account c^ its'^ quality, the 
Weighing being paid by the plaintiff. This weighing will not relieve the 
plaintiff, if the quality of th» butter was what the defendartt represents, it to be.. 
Now the quality of the butter was Tory bad,, part of whut was received and paid 
for was bad, wfliat was refused was little better than grease. I cannot hold that 
by inspecting tlie f^w packages opened by plaintiff's clerk the defendant boUnd 
himself to reqeive and pay the price of good juerchan table butter for butter of 
the quality that is slTown'' to be, and the action must^be dismi^ed. 



^_ ^XbaJippellaiilsubmiU Abe-foUowtngiiTifhoritres in support of his case : 

PoTHiE^i, Contrat de vente. > 

I No. 46, ^Le vendcur satisfait pleinem^ent son obligation de livrer la chose, 
lori-qu'il a fait ce que ddpcndait de lui de sa part pour que- I'achcteur pe&t, 

fete." '• - ... / . : - 

No. 52, " C'e,8t k I'achetcur d I'envoyer ehercher, etc." ■ " 

Nos, 278, 279 and 308. 
'< Code Canadien, No. 1493. " The obligation "of the seller to deliver is 
," satisfied, etc." ' ^ 

' ' And vide p. 45, No. it, of the 2nd Tol. of the Commissioners' Report Code 
Oataadien, as interpreting No. 1493. *'- 

Chittt, Commercial Law, Vol. 3, pp. 285-6,. as to actual and constmctive 
deli v ery. "^ 



^ 



y^ 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868. 



35 



irq\?„"n"r'' ^'^'V T* ^'^''^ 192, referred to inClutty, underlLuk.Moor. 
ote (9) and in Comvn on nnnd-kofa v-^i i _ nw ' •■ """vt» 



note (9) and in Comyn on Contrfcts, Vol. 1, p. 97. 

lowerCanadaJurist., Vol. 6,jp. 108toll3 - 

i>/c<a of judgment of Privy Council in BoswSll .,. Kilborn et al., .« to 
'.delivery and n«k of buyer-j' Convertible term«,"_<. Aetual deliver;- and 

Acta equivalent to delivery ■•_" Tender " atid " Waiver of tender." 

n , n r ., .. Judgment Confirmed. 

X>«y <fe /)ay, for the nppdiiint. °-^ 

A. S W. I&>hertsoH, for respondent. 



constructive 



COUB DU BANC DM LA REINB. \ 

. EN AtPEL. 

,. MONTREAL, 10 DECEMBRE 1870, - '', '' '"^r- 

Coram riion. juge en chef J)i,val» et les honorables juges Caron, Drummomd 

Badgley ET Monk. 

- V ■ LOUIS ALLABDktal., °" 

. ' J.Demandeur$ Contettantt,) ' 

. -^ . Appelants, 

LES SYNDICS DE LA PAROISSE j5e ^T. J^AN BAPTlSfEDfioXTON, 

' „ _- -^ " . DfirBXDBCBB; 

. ■ ■ i . BT ^- —-^ ' 

PTRANpOIS' PINSONNADLT, 
^ . (Tiers-taiii,) 

ConUrnction d^igli^-msolution Wo,,.^e^^;^-e,_Ar„«.-,, ^,^ 

Mode de paiemeiit des constructeurs d'Sglise. ^>5\ 
J.G6:-1 Q^e les demandeurs ne pouvaient, dans I'espfice. se pou^rV^; voie desaisie- 
construpti^ndesbatisaesfaitesparlesdemandeurs "V coBtr'ouer a i« 

2 Quelei syndics pouvaient aceorder aax contribuables <une extension des delais 

yoici lejugemfent de la Cout Sup^rieure (Johnson, J )\ 

r>rr'^-^°"!i"'"l''l"'^ *-^' P""^ ^^ their respective cotralel, ekamineTthe" 

-SuST^^'^^^T'^ ""™'^S **"^ deliberated »; well upon th!/ 
fte issues of law raised by fhe answer in law of the plaintiffs contestant fyled 

aii r^-i " "??".'" ""''*" '^ "'* contestation and moy^. fyled by the 
said plaintiffs considering that by the resolution of the trustees of^the parilfi of 

fho£rd?r;t ; ^"^*r'.'»'''«'^ «« *•>« *w«n«eth day of September, one 
thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, mentioned in the pleadings in this ciuse 
tbeticrs-satsie, the said Francois Piusonneault, was bound' to the payment the 

wthengh ^^odifyadd^gulate as regards the terms of paylntTthI 
s Id assessmonts; and considering that the said resolution was and Is legal ; and 

ut^^rttr " ""''"^* ^" """^ *•" Plaintiff's^riginal action'^i S 
Tl-^i . T P"'"'""' '''^'' acte of repartition and resolution men- 
tioaodip the pleadings in this cau,e; and considering that it has no" Z 



and 
D. Batten. 



1 


■' : ■■ •■/"" 



■ft 



>■/£. 



36 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINK, 18-70. 



Louja AjlMd.proTcd <)r Alleged on Jlie pnrt of the plaintiffs contcatnnts that'thcre was any 

^ • fraud or collusion on the part of the said Franjois Pinsonnoault, tiers-saisi ; and, 

kParofsM de^"'*^" ^^'^ *''*' ^"'"^ contesting parties have not proved the material allegations 

St. Jean Bap- ^^ '^eir contestations and nwi/ens, doth dismiss, as well the said answer in law 

tisto d^^Rox-of the said contestant^' as the said contestation and moijens by them fyled to the 

et declaration of the caid tiers-saisi, with costs dlstraitt in favor of Messrs. Girard, 

wilt?"" : '^*''"'^'" * Sicotte, attornies for the eaid titrs-saisi. 

Voioi le iugemcnt dc la Cour de Rdvision (Mondelet, Berthclot, Beaudry, JJ.) 

- La Gour Sup6r4cure sidgcant > Montreal pi6sentemont en Cour dC Revision, 

i _ "J""* entendu les parties int^ress^es par leurs nvocats rcspectifs, Sur le jugement 

rendu le 23 octobre 1863, par la Cour Supeiieure sifgeant duns le district de 

Bedford, ayant examine le dossier et la procddure dans cctte cause, et ayant 

. _ .1/ " pleincnicnt iiWiCr^; considgrant quo les dcninndeurs pour le paiement du 

jugement par cux olitenu centre les sjndics de la dite paroisse de St. Jean Baptistc 

de Boxton, ne pouvaieni se pourvoir par saisic-arrdt direoto entre les mains des 

•* paroissicns tenus de contribuer A" la construction des bfitisses faites par les 

V demapdcurs ; consid^rant de plus, que les 'syndics pouvaient accorder aux contri- 

buables une extension des d^lais fix^s par la loi, et que la resolution des syndics 

invoqu^e par le tiers-saisi en cette cause est l<;gale ; consid^rant quo le contrat 

•ur Icquelest basec I'action des demandeurs est post^riem- ij, la dite resolution 

qtii n'cst entaclide ni de fraude ni de collusion, et ^ue d'aiUeurs les demamleurs, 

aiosi qu'ils le dddarent dans lour r^ponse produite lo 12 aoiit 1867, nWient 

.. ^ rien k faire avec le mode de pr^lovemcnt de la cotisation imposde sur les Wntri- 

buables, et qu'eii cons^quenoe de ce que dessus.il n*y a pas d'erreur dans le 

" jugement rendu coaime susdit le djt 23 octobre 1868, la cour confirmele dit 

jugement tvec d^pens dont elle »ccorde distraction ^ Messieurs Girard, M ercier 

et Siootte, avocats du tiers-saisi. 

Le point en litige a rapport a la contestation que les appelanta ont faite dela 
declaration de I'intime, Franjois Pinsonneault, comme tiers-saisi. Les afipc- 
, , Itnts out et6 de^out^s do Icur contestation par la Cour Sup^rieure de Bedford 
•t ce jugcment/k ^t^ oonfirme par la Cour de ^Revision 4 Montreal. 
Voici les faits. 

Le 23 mars 4^62, certains habitants de la paroisse deSt. Jean Baptiste d« 
Roxton, dans 1« district de Bodford, ont dte eius syndics pour surveiller la 
construction d'unc eglis^^ssacristie et presbyttire en cette paroisse. Cette dlec- 
lion fiit confirinle par les \><jmmissaires nommdi pour r<Srection civile des 
paroisses, le 11 avril 1862 ; ces faits aont admis par la reponse qua I'intim^ a faite 
aux articulations de faits des appelantij. 

Le 12 juillet 1862, les syndics ont fait un dcvis des ouvrages k 6tre faits, un 
ettime de leur coflt, et un acto de cotisation faisant connaitre les immeubles - 
•ssujettis k ces travaux et le nom des proprjetaires de chaque immeuble, et la 
proportion k Stre pr^levee sur chaque immeuble; le coftt des travaux fut port^ 
4121,256.4^ - , . 

La terre df Pinsonneault, I'intii^e, fut evalu^e, dans cette repartition, k $400,^ 
et aa proportion pour les Bfitigses fut fixde k 858.80. Par cet acte de repartitioa 



X. 



t , 



ere was any 



*j 



COUR DU. BANC DE LA REINii; 1870.\ 



V 

\ 
37 



L'aote do ootisation a <(td homolnmi/. noi. )».>»», • • j . „ St. Jean Bap 



il fut prtfscnW, le ler aoflt 1862. 



ton 
et 



nneLI11l7''"n™ ^^^^' ''" "^'"^^O' »»* '^^ofti h r^.olution suivante. dans ^rs. Pteaoa. 
unen8scmll^oqu"ilseur«ntcejour-la. ° ' nault. 

Que la 8ommc n'excodant pas douxe piastres pr^leveo sur chuque franc-tenan- 
ZllT' ' -:r '' '"''' ''' '^P"''"- •^'-^ P" - corps hi . 

. mestrieU; et quo ce le qui cxc^Je douze piastres dgalement pr^lev^o en'ertu 
do a r partition susc tee, soit payable, en Tingt-qu^tre payments e^aux etsc 
mestnels a oompter du prcnuer aom dernier. uLniuiement adopt/° , 

deva'nt'Xlf r'" '"'^'''^'"''^'''^ 

dev«ntn,attreBoaucl.e,n.„, notairo, fait une convention avco les syndics rehei 

vemenU la construction de I'dglise, de la sacristie-et dupres^yt6relW^^^^^ 

866 et ^67 pour le prix de $18,340 que les syndics convinrent de pay! Su ; 

fut t.pulj5e payable oouune^Buit: «600. le ler avril 1864; mSn^e somteTe 
•600, le ler septembre m, et en.uite'$800 le ler ayril et le ler septemle de 

Lc sei^e f^vricr 18G7, les appelants ont bbtenu jugcment a Bedford danslino 
ppu«u.te portant No.. 610, centre les di.s synLl prdposdfi U 'baS 
i^.^ur^so..ede,484.21,pou.partieduco^tL ^ 

Le n,6.ne jour, seize ft.rier 1867, les appelants ont obtenu contre les syndics 
nn autre jugement sous No. 722, pour «1600 ct int^rSts- ^ ^ 

entre les mains de plusieurs autre, habitants int^ress^s comme contribuables . 

^lentobtenus centre res syndics, etces derniers se sontobligJdeleur payer lo 
«ontantdeces deux jugementsettous les fraisencourus sur iceux "^"^'^'T 

le Zt^I^;r^^' rr^-^^^ ^^ ^^ pa.^j^^ ^ ^oxtln, da., ■ 



io^^^otd^^^de^Mtn^mrm-rsettam^^^ serinentptgt^J suF 



■- «^^4. 



J." 



38 



COUR DV BANC DE LA REINE, 1870. 



r 



et 
Fn. Pinion- 
" nault. 



Louis Allai^ les Saints^ KvangiU'S (lit, depose ct ddclnro de la manierc .suivkntc, c'cat i. aiiToir : 

' g^'* qu'au ten^ de la ugnificAtion H lui faite ,du bref de saisie-arrSt ^mand ea cettt 

LeaSjndioadeeause, il n'avait pas, n'a pas luaiDtenant et il n'cet pas 4 sa oonnaisaaooe qu'il 

1& PfirOlBBfi Qfi * 

B^. Jean Bap- >""'* P""" '* *wUe cntre scs luainspu possesHion, ailbuno HOmtue d'argent, crdanoos, 
tiato de Box- mcubles oii cfftt? appurtenant aux d^Sfetjdeura cu cfette cause, excepts la aomme 
de quator'ze j)iuatrcB et £[uinzc paieuients de,$2.50 chnque, au meilleur de iu» 
oonnai^aance, .les pnicnitnts ec faisant lea premiers d'adfit et de fifvricr de chaquo 
ann^e juequ'4 parfait paienicnt/' \; 

Toutcp COS pretentions des appelant?, dit I'intini^ duns soni"actum,-TJOht plua ou 
nioins spi^ciciises, -niais ce, qti'on a'.pcinc iiconiprcndro, "c'est qu'ils ne s'iperQoi- 
vent paa qu'avcc Ja connaisaancc qu'ils ont cu dp ccs ddlais, et aprds j avoir 
ncquicBcd, conime le marchC* suffisuit i, lai soul 4 le constate^, lis osent nainte- : 
- nant attaquer !a resolution coninie enttch^e de fraude et de nullitd. Do fraude, 
i regard des con.structcurs qui I'ont connuc d'avau'ec, ont tacitcment promia de- 
s'y confofnicr,„et out cons-cnti it ne. reccvoir leurs paicnieuts qu'aux epoques 
' , uicntionn^cs dans cctte r^Rolutipn I -De nullitd, eux qui ont au moina accepts la 
responaabilitd personnelle des syndics 4 I'egard des contribuablca, cten seraient. 
par i4 devenuB lea gariiuts au cas ou les contribuables, forces par les constructeura 
. de payer avant Jes ddlaia'puBliqucment accord^s, revi(?ndraient centre les syndics 
pcrsonnelleinent ! 
'^^ Les nullit^s d'ailleura ne se prononcent pas ainsi sans cause let sans intdr^t. 
Dansle cas d'une construction d'dglise, la se\ile personne qui pouprait se plain- 
dre d'une irri^gularit^ tuucbant la perception de la taxe, aerait le oonstructeur ; 
maia du moment qu'il la coiiyrc, qui done pourrait Tinvoquer ? . ' 
. " Lea Duilitds sent de droit idtroit et tie peuvent se suppl&r." 

Perrin, dans son truite desnullitds (Page 147), dit que la Ipi valide ce qu'elle 
D'apue paa ; et le mSme autcur, rapporte plus' loin I'opitiion d'un gran4 juris- 
consulte, en"^^ France, qui dit quo " aucune nullitd ne peut gtre Wgitimemeqt . 
prononc^p, aj elle p'est formellcment etablie par uno loi expreBBe.''^" 

" Si la loi eut voulu la nullity, aans doute elle i^aurait dit. Le juge ne doit 
pas 6tre plus severe qu'elje," Perrin, hco ci«j^. 174). , . . 

Le mSme auteur dit plus Join (p. 177) : •' Il ri^sulte de tout oelh qu'il ne 
auflSt pas de s'fitrc dearth de la loi pour donoer lieu 4 ran^antissem'eat.de I'acte. " 
II faut encode que la loi ait prononcd la peine de nullitxS." ' ''. 

Pernafettre aux appelants d'invoquer cette pr^tendue nullity, serait proclanjer 
qu'on liie peut rehonoer 4 un droit privd, jst que si on I'a fait, on pent toujoura, 
Sana ^ause et sans raiaon, considi^rer cctte renouciation oomme non avenue. 
.' II n'y a que dans lea queations de morale et d'ordre public que Ja voiont^ 
privde est mise de^cdtd ; il n'y aque lea nUUitds absolues de oe genre qu'on ne peut 
• couvrir; lorsque cette nullit(£f n'est qo'e rclative,''et que laperaonne'qui pourrait 
^'en plaindre renonce a le faire, il n'y a pliia lieu d'en parler. 

" Les dcmandeurs, pour le p^iemcnt du jugemcnt par.eux o^tenu contre les 
ayndics de la dite paroisse de 3t. Jean-Baptiste de Roxton, qe pouvaient pas se 
poiirvoir par saisie-aVr^ directc ■ entre les mains des paroissiens tenuj^de con- 
tr i buer ^ r l a co na truet i o n des b S tiase a faitB s par ln « dnni ft ntloiira • » t^*! i ^ ^t \'nn 



' des oonsid^rants ^u jugenient de la Gour de Revision. 



irf' ^ -E ffSa 9^T ^ ' .'l - 



C5UR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1870. 



39 



En fffot, la ioi , pourvu au nmdo d« p»ie,nent des constructeurs (THiso ■ et t . \u . 
e mode cxeluait .u.plicitc.„ent cdui do la voio dirccte par cur cooX c'ol ti "' 

aa.na lea argents „^.es«ireH pour cette fin, cVn^ pWvai«ot so les pZZZZ «- 

^^: :Xe^o: ;f £;:^i:^ jL^^ r- ^'«^'i ^-d unT 

' To^^ ■/ Tec, "°«"°:P«'-«*'<'-«<>- let'em de: ^'Ze. ,y«rf»c, rfe fa 
. paroisse de (Beet. 21) et sont par consiJqucnt soumis A Routes Ics rteles 

4 kurs p„v,ld5e8 ; ce sont eux qui contractent avec Icb coristrocteurs bous Tur 

no^ corporat.f, pour Ic^s travaux , fairo, et ils en paient le eoO lu^oyerdte 

«e qu .18 .mpoBent et perjoivent conform^n^ent aux prescriptionB deT"ol "ur 

I.»hab.tanu C.hoiiqueB de^la p„roiBBe; bI (el. 31) unVBomL IffiBal a dl 

s^ out plus U droit de pereev^ir leB autres versementB de la tare qui deZu 
llT ''^''t^'^'' ■' .?' ■'^ .''-^"-e 1" tAxeest insuffisante, Sgrlun 
marge de qu.nze par ecnt, qu'ils sont tenuB de prendre pour parer auxTentua 
r^a Burg..ant,Boit deB extraB ou de rineapneitl de cer^inBrb taTst pave/ ' 

■ laeitr" "r """'^ '^P"'5t'on des denies dflB, la font LoE 
et la coUeetd comme la premiere (cl. 27 ) • ""'""«««*^ 

.•al"l:t rltT/l"^''"'''^^^^^^^^ ^ -"^'^'^-^^ leB Bandies et 

^rr . t r "'"'' ''' ^^^^^ C^^^"* "ndreehaqueann^euncompte 

«ac des t>p^rnt.onB (el. 33.) Si leS Byndies manquent de rendre ce dp te 

II r^Bulte de cet 6Ut de ehoBe lo.' que Icb demandeurB, ^^b a^voLTb enuun . 
jug^menteon ,e Icb Bjndics pour un. pprtie du prix/devaient pou tfoir^ 
payer, forcer leBBjndiesavid.rleur8,main8;.pl„Bie„!;v;i;B^^^^ 
IK>j^^cela, entr'autrcB la redaition de compte avec contraint. par co Jb ' ' 
^ Lalo.ajant .,ocord^ aux »yndioB le, aigents neceBsaire,, !«« contracteurs 
detaient a'adrcBser 4 eux ; et ceux-ei ne peuvent are d^chai^^B queTSue le^ 
^vaux Bont termin^B et paydB (sect...39, Icb conBtructeurB°«.vrn dSce 

yndiCB devaien toujours avoir .Tcb TondB en maiuB j^ur i^neontm L™ 

^^X:^Zf'1^''''^ contracteur/lient:::!^ . 
pour KSrcerl^ syndics, 4 remphrleuts devoirs; le compte-rcndu' annuel ou le 



.-' /I 

1 /. 



»rgeut en mams, alflW ils divaicnt s'a'dregsw^ 



■y ^ 



I 



\ 









': » 



.-.p.. .I'f-T.iU's^r 'r->" y* 



■» ", 



? f^ 



40 



COUR DU BANC DE LA EEINE, 1870. 



I 



Louis AlMrd nux conimlssnircs oivils; uiais h'ils avaiont dcs argents, il 8cr«it oontrniro i\ I'ei- 
jj ' prit du statut ct H I'tjquitd do lucttro tous cos rccours de c8t4^, pour s'utta'quur i^ 
LesSyndics de dcs tiers que la loi avail ppdcjtilcment cri vuc dc prot<''i'cr'pnr toulcs ccs ^ispo- ' 

Jft A ftrO,IS86 (16 • • 

St-Jeah Bftp-Hitions. , s . 

^'*** 4'n '*"" ^^' ^^^^ '^^ "'''''^ " " ^^" fuif, ricn novcoustnto que los %ndics n'tvaicnt pas 
ct en mains Ics argents otlccssaires pour payer' los "dcmiAideurft; lion no cOn«tato 

''beX""' *'0'"P'°' T*'''8 <?"' f"'^ <^o ccux qu'ils ont dft pcrcevoir; on am is do cfitd toutcs " 
Ics sau)jc{»nrdcs dont le Idgislatcur prQti-L'O Ics contribuublcs, pou|r a'attaquer i\ 
cur dircdtcuicnt. , " \ - 

II parait done <5vidcnt quo le statut a cyleve aux coutraote^rs tout rcopurt 
directe centre Ics contribuabieR, qui, d'ailleurs, d'apris lo dl-oit commun, (art, 303 
du C. C.,) sont exempttde- tffut recours ptr»ohnel pour Vacquiter dcs obligixtioiu 
qu'eile (la corporation) a 'contractiea dan$ le$ limites de sea pouvqit-a et avec l<$ 
forri^HUa reguiaea. ' " . * . .? 

. ^ Quant a vouloir considdrer Ics contribuablcs comme do simples ddbitcurs 

'' tu lieu de mcmbres de la corporiltion, la chose parait impossible. Les syndics • 

ne sont que Ics agents ou administrateursde la Fftbriqueou dcs fak'iciens pour 
. upc^ 'fin spdciale ; e'ils formcnt ~une cor|)oration, cc n'est qu'cn cettofqualitd 

' d'agcDts dcs paroissiens; d'ailleurs Icurs dcTofrs ct leurs pouToirs, ainsi qu'on 

les a fait connattre, ddmontrcDt claircmcnt qu'ite ue sont que les rcpr«5sentaats 
dcs contribuablcs, cpmme toute corporation^ ri^pre^eute bcs membrev comme 
uo exdcuteur tcstamentaire represcntcrait und succession, on un tutcur son 
■'pupille. 

fon dirccte^et non pas^ la saisie-arret, qui, existe centre les actionnaires 
paiefijent de leurs parte, est clairemeii>'cnlevde aux demandeurs par Ic 
pourToir au paicment dcs contracteurs que le statut a dtabli, ct qu'il a 
substitu^ k la rcsponsabilitd limitde d^s actionnaires,: au moyen d'une nouvcUe 
repartition, si la premiere prelevde (scc't. 27) est insuffisante, et'aussi en lo subs- • 
tituant au mode de liquidation dcs corporations dissoutcs qui se fiiit ordinairc- 
ment par la nomination d'un curateur'a la succession vacantc' Cart. 371-2-3 

X'intimd se crolt done en droit de conclurc que la saisie directe n'cxjstait pas ^ 
. contre les don^ribuableS au profit des contMcteurs. 

Ndanmoin^, ^""i'on mainteuait Tex^ercice de cctte contrainte, I'iptime 

> Boumct qu'il fallait de toute ndcessitiS coustatcr pr<Salablement par'un conipte dea 

, syndics qu'ild n'avaient pas en main les argents qdcessaires pour payer les 

contracteurs, cooime cela se pratique du resto 4 I'^ard'du tuteur, lorsqufe les' 

, immeublcB dcf son pupille doivent etre-vendusl (CO., 298— IPigeau, p.) 




^L'h 
Bafi 



^L'hon. juge 'Drummond, Disa.) 

Mane et Caaaidy, avocats des appelants. 
nard et Fagnuelo,^9iSOO&i6 jde Tintimd. 



Jugement confirm^. 




/-^ 



.^.,^ I 



/ 
/ 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1871. 



/41 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. i 

(AppiAtaoi.) I 

MONTREAL, ^tbSEPTE^R, 1871. | 

Coram . C. J. DcVal, Caron. Drcmmonp, Baodley and Monk, JJ. 

.THE M^tOR, ALDER jIEN AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OP.MONTREAL, 
/ • / ' (.O^'tdanfi in ^ Court Mow,) > 

^^WILLIAM DOOLAN >^ ., j 

^^ (Pldinfij^ in the Court Mow,) 

'•' m 1 \. n \^ »t R«II'0ND11IT. 

This is 'n,v appeal tvom^ ]^L^r^t, U^^,^^ ^^U Court of Roview at 
Montreal, condemning the appellants to pay responden/one hundred dollars for 
<amnge« suffered personally and ione to his carriagei the aets of two policy 
nen in their employ. / *^ 

The respondent states in his- declaratio^^that di the 28th day of July 
1867 while in ™it of his vocation as a carter Ithe city, two policemen 
without any caiise whatQver, arrested him and tool' htm to the station, at the 
«me time a stranger was allowed to drive a*ay witi the respondent's Carriage 
«hioh, from bad usage, sustained damage. ' / ^ 

The appellants in their first plea' deny that they , re/ffible for the unauthor- > 
>«Bd,un awful or wrongful acts of jjolicemen In tLir emploympnt. In ,h« ' 
second plea they set forth that-the respondent Jed aSisive language to the fir« 
pchee and that the police were justified at the ti Je in a^stinghim "and, further, 
bat he suflbnid no damage, as he was immedialely dischai^ed. And then fol 
lows a dejhise aufomh en fait. . ^ 

The whole question to be decided Is, to what extent is a corporation liable for 
the acts of Its servant, i„.theiremploymeV,t,^there must be a limit. The acts 
omplainod of by the respondents, says the appellant,' were unlawful and unau- 
!r'7l ! ,"^P'"""''- -T'^'^y r^'-*' «ot «^en within the general.. u^horiza. 
tu>n gi*„ to poheeraen, for they are ordered only to arrest those who are violat- 
ng law or charged with doing so ; not even did the appellants ratify pr confirm 
the acts of the policemen, as the respondent was immediately discharged on 
eacj.ing the station. Such^being the case, the appellaft»s are free from liabil- 
seSionS r° y^ ^ ^laid down in^A^ei/ andAme. pa Corporations,-^^ 

^ "GenerailyacorporiJtion is civilly responsible for damages occasioned by an 

'•rlrrlTT'*"'''.'? '''^^ commahdbyjts agent,L relation to 

^^ a matter withm the scope of the purposes fgr wfeieh it was inJrporated. It 

^ snot however, responsible for unauthorized and unlawful a J of its officer. 

^^ thougUonecofore officii:^ To fix the liability it must appear^hat the officera 

were expressly authorized to do ^he act, or that it ^as done hLa ^.U ft. p„r ' 



-"'gsnmr authority in relation to the subject of i^lhat it t, 
adopted or ratified by <he corporation." 



was 



y 



\, 



^' 



.„! 



4d 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1871. 



A'^lifJ!''^"'^ Ililliard on Torts, vbl. 2 p. 344-BupporU thia vie<r and addi that the obliaa- 
Aiacrman and t< _ _r4i^« ^-^ i, n . ... " 

OiilMniofthe "°" "' thtfoorporatido, " so fur as rospoots those tn their employment, doet not 
CItjr of Mont- " tortnul beyond the uio^of ordinary care and diliiteBec." 

and P- S-^B ■ " A corporation is not liable for « wilful trespass of a person ctn- 

W. Doolan. "ployed hy it, ^Itliough the act be authorized and Janotioood by the president 

••and general agcut," Thus where' the plaiutiff/fiad been taken into custody 

^ by a railway conductor, ratifloatioa must bo clearly proved. 

; The judgment complained Of*i3efrenoous in so far as it gives exemplary and' 

cOnscqucntiiil or rather remote diimngcs to the respondent. For instance, the 

injury done to the caiTiage was done' for the m^st part before the Interference 
of the police, and the subsequent injury to the horse and carriage bji the persons 
who went away with it and not by the poHoe or «fith their order. Suoh romot« 
damages cannot be claimed from the api>ellants, > 



Iq the most favorable view which oould be. taken of the olaim of "the respoq. 
y „i <^*'"'> *•'« 0"'y damages he could be entitled to are the actual and direct dun 

ages which the respondent suflFeriBd at the hands of the servant of the ^pillant 
The entire absence of wrongful intention on the part of the corporation rostrioh 
its liability, to direct and actual damages, even if the act had been aathotiici 
. by the corporation, which it denies, v / 

Ililliard's liemedies for Torts p. 485 /^urdatde la respcyntabiliU volyl, p. 6 :. 

" Naturellement, c'est centre I'uuteurSia d(5lit quel qu'il soit, queia person re 
" l<?s«'e doit diriger la demando,«n dommages-intdref. L'ugent ddft en gdndnl 
" Buppor.ter toutes les cons<?qnen^es de sa faute. 

Sourdat V. 2, p. 81 et Prudhon. . / 

. " Lorsqu'il s'agit de ddlita fflf^ contravcntioqs par commissloq, c'est it^ 
^' prineipe g^iidral qu'il n'y a que ccux qui en sent les auteurs qui doivent 3n 
"'souffrir. La raison de ccia e'tet que I'obligatlon qui rdsulte d'un ddlit E.'a 
" d'autre caftse que le fait m6me qui y donnelieu ; o'cst par oefait, et pjir co fait 
' " soul, qu'eile est contractde, il n'y a, par consequent, que celui qui y a donnd 
•" son CQnscntement qui puisse en Stre tenu." 

Touillier vol. 2, 243, 2^9, 279,230. ^ - 

L. C. E. vol. 1, p. 40e(l . ^., 

Drolet vs. The May^ et al. 

If we examine the evidence carefully there is nothing to show that the res- 
pondent suflFercd any direct, and actual damage whatever. • ^ \ 

If there remained any doubt about the Judgment being unfoundedHn law it 
will be removed by referring to art. 365 of the Civil Code where it is^clearly 
stated that corporations •• cannot sue or be sued for assault, battery or other vio- 
lence on tl;(e person. 'V , ■ 

•Bespondent's ARGUENDO : Eespondcnt claims damagesfor two eause8,firstly, 
putting him under arrest; and exposing him thus to the gaze of jiis fellow-citi-i 
zcns, a tort and treapngg against the person of the most grievous kind; and it 
is expressly laid dewn by " HilUard on Torts " Vol. 2, Seed. Edit. p. sU, that 
a corporation may be sued for au assault and battery committed by theii ser- 
4?gnt acting under their author!^ % and it ia a rule perfectly establish^H/pay, 




' ^+''' 



/'V-* 



COURT OF^HteENS «ENCn, 18tl, 



48 



♦hi!*"!*™" "uHior on same pnge,"tlmt "corporations ore liable for Injury and all The Mayor, 
tiWngs cauned by the wrongful aols of thoir icrvanta and agonta done in the '^ '!*""'•"•"<* 
cotti^se.^ind «l*hin the scope of tlioir employ moot ; or whore, under lik« circum- Oii/or'Mont^ 
;^tance4 an individual would bo liuble " Heiponcbsat Superior" for the triipasi J^*j 
. and tOrt of restroining rcspone^ent <ff his liberty, disturbing him in and depriv- W. Doolan. 
4n^him of the posseRsion ond.use of his lutrso and onrriage, and breaking and 
/^njrtring the same, to the amount of th^.Hpociiil daniago proved ; and this appcl- 
' latits dl^ by their authorized RCrvants and agents, acting within the scope of 
" their outliprity, and arc hence liabl|, as #ould bo an individual master, under 

the circumstances. t ; - "' 

The breaking and damage flonc to the corrVgo is not b. violence on the person, 

but a treupjis nnd tart for wJiich iippcllants ar^ liable by the laws of every civil- 

< izcd country ; and ns to the nrresting ofrcBpondcnt complained of by oppcllant'a 

- servants under the circumstances, ho submits tha|al80 is 9 tort and tre»pa$» for 

which appellants are liable, and not an act ainountiiig to a breach of the peace, 

^which latter is the kind of act contemplated in our'^f'odc, when'it i»ays that a 

corporation cannot be sued for assault or battery or otli^r violence on the person ; 

this means such violence a^ amounts to a breaoli of the peace, and is not, there-" 

fore, of the nature of the trespass and torts complained oif by this action, which 

latter are everywhere chargieable to the master or employer. 

Hero is the judgment of the Qourt of Eftview (Mondelit, Bertiielot, 
& MaoKay, J.J.): . . / 

" The Court now here, sitting as a Court of Keview, having heard the 
"pirties by their respeotivo counsel upon the judgment rendered in the Super- ' 

" ior Court for the District of Montreal, on the twenty-eighth day of March, one 
" thousand eight hundrdd and sixty-eight, having examined the recordland 
" proceedings had in this cause, and maturely deliberated; considering That ^ 

" plaintiff has proved the material allegations of his declaration. 

" Considering that his action and defiiande are well founded for recovery of - 
"damages, for the causes olleged in his'said declaration, to wit, of damages 
" caused to him\plaintiff, personally; and to his carriage od! the twenty-eighth of\ 
" July, one thousand eight hundred anMxty-sisven, at ]\RH>trcal, by the actsV 
'; and doings of tW policemen on duty, servants of defendants, in their eqiploy, ." 
" acting under thteir authority ; 

"Considering ihat defendants, jjoliccmen who arrested plaintiff were not 
''justified in making said arrest of plaintiff, and that defeijdants have not proved 
" the allegations of their plea justifying said arrest j - " 

" Considering Jlhat under the issues in this cause, and the proofs made and 
''bylaw, the defendants are liable in damages towards plaintiff, and that, 
"therefore, in the judgment complained of, to wit, the said judgment of the 
" twcnty-feighth/df March, one thousand eight hundrecl and sixty-eight, which 
" declared defeiidants not liable, and dismissed plaintirs action, there was and 
"is error, this/Court revising, said judgment, dotli annul an4 reverse the same, ' 
"and prooeedihg to render the judgment which the ^aid Superior Court ought ij 
" tn hav e r e qa e r e d 4a-4h»y F em(M>^ 4bi» -Gwirt d»th Wndcmn- dcfendauta, to ===== 



..^m: 



'\ 



44 



^ 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1871. 



Siv '„?'«' •'r..rT": *• *''= »'''"y-fi'^« J"""- for tl.« damage, caused to pUlntir. 
Cu^orMone...c«rn,ge .„d .„., fiv. doll.r, for d.»«ge. to MaiM.fff by th. u„w.rra,.tod 

W idun ./";'" °5'""»,»«»;P'«""'d«f. wi»l. intcrert on .!.« .aid .um of one hundred 

Court and co«,s of thfi Court .. in tho flr.t d.,^ of c.»<^ in .aid Court. 
«^*<r«w. to Marcus liberty, Enquire, Attorney fo/>lnintlff." 
Tin. judgment WM ooiiflriued by th/ Court of Appeal. 

("f-h. n«„ T J r. . „/ / J>»''gn»«nt confirmed. 

(Ihe Hon. Judge. DcvAt. and B.ioaLiy, diii.) , 

Stewart et Roy, for ttio appeliftnt. I ^ 

Dohtrtjf et Dohtrty, for ro.pondout. 

..____ ^ _. ^ _ _■ __ ,::. • . " ' >'_ \ . .,- . : ._ . 

f _ SUPERIOR COURT. 

: • • . MONTREAL., 2I.T DECEMBER, IMS. 

Curafn. Johnson, J. - 

• ■ 

V ^ction in dantaget—contrilfutory negligence. 
•Per Curiam i-the defendants are meroliant. and co-partners, Md the plain- 
.ff sue. them for d.mage.,aileging that their Wrnnt, who wu. driving their icigh 
oaded w.th bars o .ron, was guilty of fault an^ negligence in that tho iron miule n 
Jinghng no..o ajd fnghtened the plaintiff', horee which ran away and .mashed* 

Waintiff-Bown .le>gh and injured his horse, so that it died. This i. the plaintiffs' 

e:;' i"" ''''fr '"^ "•"''"' •«'"*^'"' '^-•"•' -^ then .: pe", 

den alof each essont.al allegation; and he further allege, that the pl.iotir- 
horso wa. young <.,d spirited, and h.d been left standing xr, the street 
w thou be.ng t.ed or «,atJred in .„y manner. I have hal. of course, L 
be vory cireful .n reading thi. eviJeno., and I eannot say there is any 

trifle .nd.the l.ttle that is essen^al only casually toucL upon, or entirely 

ofhis^wn h""' ' 7,"'t'' '''^' ^"^ *^''* "^'-^ '•'• PH"''ff 'ho had ciargi 

or h ,i,wn hor.e and .le.gh, do ? There were two milk s eigh. in the .trea^t 

ho t.me, th«t of the plaintiff standing *. one side of the .teet. and the sldgh^ 

^htLTr^'"^'°^'''''•'*'^•''•"'•'•'^^^^^^^ ^''« icfendants' Jel,! 
s^lV; m T ''•'"r;'T« >" '•>« "•"'« flireetion and between tho two milk 

who wa. J ''"k * '? ' '"P"*""* '' '^"^ ^^'"59^"^^ ? Couture, the n,a„ 
who wa. driving their sleigh with the iron^it. is examined , . "i, 
ne.. for them He .,y, the three sfefglis wer^a,, goi^ ,^M,^t,^ 

^^^rtVc^utiff-s) and hisword^ about which there can be r^ 
offesteryily avait^dem roiturc. de vcnd<„.« Jo i^,-. j„ .,.....' ...., , . 



Chester , il y avait^eu, voMurc. de vendcur. do li«;de ehilqu; ^t^ de l^ 



» 



SUPERIOR COURT, 1885. 



45 



vne (1(1 cOt< droit, et una du^fltd pauclie ; rondu prdndo la roiturt du veDdeur * 
do lait qui so Ir-uvakTrt cM droit il y aviiit un [wlU onlio», ct le nloigh du vcn- 
dourdoluitpcnoliait un pea <Ju em du trottoir, ot en puwtant \i, il H'cRt adonntS 
iK pnnMsr un ohieiAdnns les pottos du ohevai iittol^4 l;i voitur.) du »oiid*urd« lait 
qui<!tnit i^droito do la rue j ovia a fi.it pcur nu ohcval, ct lo alcigli %g\itit4' un 
piu en roculant, cola fait pour nu clioval pnroiquc le chicn a toucli.S aui pattoa 
du IhcTftl. En reculunt, le nloigh n'cHt ■ppuy.S MUr nioa barroa do ftr, et oela I'a 
nrrM ct ocia a fuit du bruit ; lo oheval ntfcW A lu voituro du cflti Kiuohe a ou 
-p6ur, ct il est parti i\ I'dpouvantp, (noi jo u'ai pas grouilld do la^. Tliornby had 
been exutuinod already by tlio pluhuiff, and" bad said that bo supponcd, tliouKh 
lie was by no means cerUiin, that Couturo'H Hleiuli Mtuolly atruok tbo doten- 
dants' sleigh. Thi« Couture,. corroborated by Sennat, plainly denies; and,, 
asked furtlior on uh to wl.nt bo bad snid to Tliornby ; bo rc{«flf« the annio story I 
bttvojuH read. Tbo defindantM'. principal witnc».i tbcn ndniito, and is uncon-' 
tradictcd, that it wis tbo noisool' the iron under oireuinstancos wbicli bo describe! 
that ^rtcd the pl.iintiff's borfc. '; Whether this constitutes /ui« or imprudence 
18 an(^cr question. Certainly, 1 should fay that iC there wu/hero on t,ho 
defendant^' side anything of i uoturo that ho could reasonably beWpcetod to 
prevent in vio* of danger to otherc, tlicro would bo imprudence or legerefaute 
perho{.8 ; but hero cooies the difficulty in the plaintiff's case. Wl.cro was he 
himself? had bo bis horse by tbo head, or under control* in any niannir ? 
There is no-evidenoe whatever to show clonrly where tlio pininiiff. was at 
that instant, or whAt he was doing, nmoh leyw to show that bo wa* doing 
what- ho was .hound to do-^whnt all persons aro bound to do.«vha"^ ' 
horses in the public f tfects— that ' i>, to have theuT under cobwST On 
the eontrtry, the one evidence on the point is quite the other way rfor Smith 
whose sleigh was wnashcd by the runaway, and at a very short dintance front 
where the plaintiff's horse and nleigb hi.d bec.n. standing, says distinctly that 
there was no one with the plaintiff^s* sleigh at the time, and that, if there had 
been, the thing could nof havb happened. Ho add*, moreover, as if ho 
personally knew tho.fucfc, that the plaintiff was insiSTtho Irouse, and Bremncr, 
another witness and nephew of plaintiff, says that was the way tho plaintiff 
elways did; and still another witno«i, Senpat, says tlii)t the pluij/tiff never fa8t> 
cned his horse either by wdight oj in any other mann,cr. It caynot be assumed, 
therefore, in the absence of orear evidence— and against what evidence 'there it 
OS well as against common-senje.tbat tho plaintiff's horse got away notwith- 
standing that it was being held at the time. There is proof of the docility of 
these horses that ar used in/niilk sleighs, and that they often learn to standstill 
without any one to look tifttk them. That says a good deal for the horses, but 



"**L?^^**' *^* "*"■ ^-'^^^'iei^g^-^^Mhat th« defendants*^ witness tells the 
^^^Hrtby-hjirtht^arntiri right of action? I think not. The defendants had 

a right to cart their iron through the streets ; a jolt that made ti^e irpn ring was 
^not a.thing easily guajded against no? a very unusual or alarmipg thing likely 
^0 make horses run,>wnY. one iftj^ld think»^at lei " " 

attended to. "" - -^ • ' - 



MeWlllie 
»•. 

Onudroa 
vPal. 



\ 



/ 




w» 



■-r.- 



W 



SUPKKIOR (JOURT, 1885. 



MeWilli. them holltd b..l thi. on.. Thomby. ho,M di,l „„» boltr Ho; wm U .h. 



Oouilron 
•I Hi 



\ 






/ 



plnintir. got off. .„.! Jid .11 tl,U m„.hi,f y I ,„ .ft.jj th„\ „„ ^ . „„^ 
•i»««»«r ; and I .„„ co..«tr.i..od to Mj th«( if a>« plaintiff, for purt.««. of hi. own 
co.,n „|,„c«, or hi. own tr.J« or p«.flf. t\mi>m to l«.f« hi. h«r«, .tandioK .ion* 
»..d un«curod in • publio .ire.t, wh.r. .11 kind of mor« or I.m noi-r trafflc 
.co,u,„u.ljr Koing on, h« i, not in « po.ilion to complain of what may 
hnr-pan without , bowing that il hnflpon.d to him whilo h. himwif w*. within 
tho profolion of tho law. Th. defondanta would b, liable onlj for .uih ooo- 
-nucnw. of their own or their «jrva.,u' .ci, .. „rdin.ry oaroon th. part of 
othsr. could not .mt. A nnik4...D driring hi. .l«gh, and holding tha rein., 
or dr .v.nng n.iik in.,de a h«u«.door to . ou.t<,m.r, and hkving .om. one el.« 
oul..d« holding the horw might, of o«ur«,, po^ibl, be e.powd to have hiahorae 
.tttrt atthe jinghugofirou bar., or at any otb«r noiae iu the atroctibut ho 
would theo U|n . Vary difforeiit |feiitiiin fromtba plaintiff h«re. He would bo 
nblo to i«y ; I wna pursuing my lawful-calUng b a lawful and a prudent way: 
1 wa^ ^driving M.yhor^e, or it waa beiug held for me ; there was'nothing oarclo* 
or negligent oft nfy part. He cannot .ay that now. It would bo to refuse to uae 
one* ootn9M>tf.HCUM to .ay, without evidtnoo to .how it, that thi. hor«) could 
have had a. own way and have p«ne careering through tho street, up.ctting 
.leigh. If ,t had been properly tended or driven at the time the iron jolted and 
frightened it. Therefore, in.ucb a caw, unlc.. it i. shown that tho U.ing would 
have happened through tho defendant.' foult, oven if there had been no fault on 
Uio p ttintiff'. «dc, ho baa no action ; for it cannot be affirmed thfit tho thing 
Jould have happened nt all without the plajntir. fault. There i« no difforcnoe - 
between tho modern French luw and our own on this aubjcot. Tho French 
article. 1382-3-4 correspond with our 1063-4-5. Sire wd Gilbert, on the French . 
; article, at No.. 10, 1 1, 12 of thmir commentary, «ny : (|I0) " Celui qui a <5prouv<5 
un Btdjudico pur ce fait d'autrui, e«t .an. droit poareti domandor la rdp.ration, 
lorBtju il » luiMiiame ocmiioM co fait par une f»uto pcr8onnolle.".(ll) "Quand 
il y H fuute tant do la part de I'ttuteuB ^n fait dommageuble que do la part do 
colui k qui ce fait a oausd prejudice, la quei^tiioo do responsabilitd e?t abandonn.^ j 
au pouvoir di.cr<5tion*ire de. tribunaui." This point, then, i. cleor; if the plain- 
tiff occasioned th« runaway by his own act or omission, it is loft to the court to 
.ay if, under tho circumstance, whether he has an action against thq defeiidant 
There is another question that sometimes comes ap in the80 casci^-thut is where ' 
the pidintiff does not himself occasion the damuj-e, but merely contributes to it 
Iu that case there is a difference between the BngHsh rul« and our.. The general 
- English rule is that.the damage muat be caused by tho defendant only to mnke 
\ .," ""!«»"'>'''• Tlio *'rench rule is stated at No. 12 of Sircy's codes, annotos 12 : 
" ToutcfoiB, la oircoDalance que la personne victime d'un accident avuit ell#* 
m«mc oommis une imprudence ne pcut affranchir de touto responsabilitiS oolui 
I dont la faute a contribu<! A determiner I'acoident, ou il Ic rendre plus grave ; ellc 
T autorise seulemont lea juge. i r^duire le obiffre des dommngcs-int^ret.-." This, 
then,\i. not a oaae of contribution, but of occasioning or giving rise to injury on 
the p*ior the plaintiff himself, and, under the rule in No. 10 of Sirey, he cannot 
recovw. If the facts wore itvcr«)d : if the defendant, instead of ln.&.«, .n.Mng 



■■^■^r:^-:^'tmr\ 



SUPUMOB COURT, 1886. 



47 



iron that hap|)«nt<l to Jingit in on untvon part of tiM road w»y, ond to it^il t 

hor^ Ihnt wu uuMOuraU nuJ unlivM At th« tlnfio, hud b««ri guiltjoCwitii* urOM 
fuultorinfmo.ionof right, iiuch a. I flna^l iD.p<».ibIo to »«• here, uuj iho plain- 
tiff on hit iido had b«.n within tho linn of prwuution ■••d prudonoi., thti deoi- 
•ion rnudt htv« bf«D ofooiirM th« otht w«j, irtwn thurn wore MJKht fault 
on the d«rcndflnt»' aide, whilo the plaintiff woa lilil« or not ut all to blame, ho 
might got rcduood daningea. ThcM p^iinta .ro admirakij tro«««<I hy tho cow 
mcototuri, Aubry, Mourdaa and Laronibi^ro. Tlio lattor p.rticulurly com. 
m«nting, art. 1882-83, en. 5 fol., p.TOS.^To. 29. aaya thare ia ulway. diflloulty 
in applying iho ruica of law to thw oa«e», and that " lea Ju^ea doivcut an affat 
M. d.mandfi' du cdic< do. I'ttutour du fuit a'il u'a fait qu'uiar de a.>n droit, aauM eu 
cicdder lea Jdataa limitt-a, etc. . Ila doivont aneora le domander du cOu5 da colul 
^ qua aa {irdtend Uf<!, a'il n'y a p«a «» da aa part Inipr^joygmco, n^gligcnoa. I4g4. 
tcU, fnuto iiuputablo da tcHo «orto que le fuit uo conlfiluKJ plua ,Uou t<j;ard ni 
d«<lit ni qua.i^««Iita." There mn nnother point prca«ed by tho plaii|tiff'a oouuhoI 
The dofondanta at ono time offered «5(). Waa this an a<knisaion flif liability or 
an ottcmpt at reconciliation ? I think tha laltof . Two witnowoa ap«ak of it and 
ono of them expressly aiiya tho defctiduntu Raid tluy would ^ivo ^50 to a^oid 
trouble. It ia a pity that it was not tnktu by the plaintiff. A-» itjii., I can only 
ai.k myielfj M ,|I niiitlcr of Inw, whether ^ouoan turn your hor*o.loo«) in tho 
«tr«!t«, and^hon ho ia frightened at the uoIho of the trafEe and riina awtty,coin^ 
plain not only of tho injuricH ho gctf, but of thoao he d«!a, and thkt you baf« to 
pny for ? Some of tho witii«aa« |ee« to think th(rt<fae defendnntH ifight have deli- 
vered their iron withiui -e-putting bagging or something t(/ doaden feound 
between the bar^ A**uuiiug, however, a alight want of prudenoo in thia rcapect 
1 have to dit^miaa tW pkMitiff'a oction, but without cohIb. I w^uld mention aa 
bearing on this oa«c nuotbera 10, 11, Itf, 26, 28, 29 and 30 of tha oamo ohaptor 
of Larombidre. * „ ' 

/6)y et Bouthillier, avocats du dcmandeur. 

Si, Jean et L^lanc, nvooata dcs demandours. 




/'• 



Present 



COURT OF QUEEN^S BENCH, ISSftJ 
Appial Sidk. 

MONTREAL, JANUARY 27t«, IfifeS. 
-DoBioN, C. J., Monk, RAiusAY^das, an^BABT, J.J. 
- WILFRED BBUNET ' ) j , 

J^^taintig^ in iL Court btlow), 



%■- I-*' 



' 1^' 



THE PHARMACEUTICAL A^QOIATIO.V OP THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEO 

: 1 ^ • r?'^^ ' • {i>i/endantinthe Court below), 

n.fn. n ' • ., , , RaBpoBDBat, ' 

HttD.-RcTer..ng the judgment of the Court of Review, that a person barlagtbe tutu. 

-of a certified clerk, who baa acted aa a druggUt for fire years in partnership with 

alicentwte in pharmacy, ia eniltHid to demand regiatration aa a licentiate in 

pbarmacy. , __^^-' 

if.''°°y!"°"'' ?_'"""^' ^ "^"^^ "^''''^'"^ ^"'gS'st dork whohad Iwien ttctinp aa 



UaWlllW 

v«. 

Uoudron 

aial- 



•7; 




« Jii-ee-t during five years in partnership with his brotlici^r^centiaieTa phjS 



■^1 



5S 



/> 



rr 



48 



COURT O^* QUEENS BENCH. 1885. 



>- 



Province of *« "ompcl tl.d Association to inficXi.' *«ok Proceedings by mandamus 

^ , appij to such oases- ihn ««»;;.» . . ^"° A"' oU»85 was intpnded to 

7~ anSshouId bo onimc 'li:^^^^^^^^ •»"'^--. -« correct 

"^ .r-V- . "'"^'»«'l- TbcjudgmeoKm Review Is reversea With costs. 

-- ^. A. (7orn(;ea«, attorney for appellant 

', VV SUPERIOR COURT, 1886. , ' 

. "' MONTREAL, FEBRUARY, 188C. 

' • : I'resent :~Caron, J. 

HExVRlTT.DECHENE .«<,/., 



-■■\^ 



AND 



Pbti'tionehs ; 
JOHNFAIRBAlRN«/a/,«,«a/, 
H«.D :-That tenant, who contribute to the revende of th« r. k ' ■ ^'''°'"''"'- 

wrs to ;inte their name I /j «f »«»damus, to compel the Board of Revi- 

qucntly, they .ere cntitlJd to 1^' ^ 1'^^^^^^^^^ 

Ibo Statute L.bi>r .■,, ».»i • " P™" »» '"» »»•«« lists witbout (la»mcnt of 

r»P«Cpmte^V"' r °'r '''-"'! '™'°"*»'"'- '^'^ »<>»«»«on.of lb, 

.Mtbe,..,e..eej„::tL::g:rr;„t^i:^tre 

. . . ". ' ' . . ' ' ■ ' I 



y 



.•1- 



/ 



SUPERIOE COUET, 18^. 



4? 



^ ht, U,o sale of an arUcIcof necessity. >hl« coutentU cannot be maintained h T D..ch« 
Si^LS i;'.r ""i ''"^''^ *"'""*'^ ^'"S?^'° ^y the wafct.tax.«dX; e?^"'* 

^wM;i^'^ "^r'i""' '' """^' " P«'''*»" ''f '"^^ "^•^'"•P"' <1^»>». tl.0 revenue J fS^ 

on wh cb,s to be apphed to that purppse. The tax is not Lied equally or !a t" "if"' 
Wri.on.to the quantity consun,ed ; and tho«e liable for it arc obUged to pay l ^ '»'"'• 
^whether they have the use pf the ^ater or uot. This showed that the tax 4 
d d no represent the price of the water. The tenant, therefore, by pay nL of 

the Bta „te Labor tax .n order to entitle him to a vote in municipal eWtions 
The petition is therefore granted. viuvuun.. 

i^ssr-.ifcuer^^jy^Afer, attorneys for respondents. f 



/ 



|\ COUET OF QUEEN'S BElfCH, 1885. 

MONTREAL, 30th DECEMBfiR, J885 
. Coram DoRioN, C. J., Eamsat,. J., Cross, j", B abt, J. } 

No. 41. . 

FRANCIS E. OILMAN ■ ^ 

^ ^', , iPtMioner.in the Court below), 

Appilla.nt ; 



AND 



ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL rt a/., «jMa/.' 

H.LD:-That an action for damages against a pledgee will Ho for an' unUwfuTconversion 
of he property },Iedged, although the debt for which the pledge was ^Len^; 

not pa.d nor tendered Vith the action, and although «o op ll^'tag^enrth" 
pledgee to return the property pledged or pay its valje ^ " 

the^Rot'l I""" .-'f "■' '^'^^'^^ "PP^"""' P'^^'^S'^'^ 3,(^b0shares of stock in "' 
oZl^^TZ ''"'""" ^'- ^«°°«^Go<»d''ue^or a'loanof $25,000.00. ^ 

pav oil ^ Tl """'•' *^' "ir"'"* ^"'^""''^.d tl^" respondents to 

pay Gopdhue^s-loan and obtain a transf^ of tjie stock, and-hold it Vs a pledge 

Xr™ """' '^''"' '"'^'^ '' '""'•^ '« ''^ ^- ^^ ^PP«"-' *o7^ 
The respondents subsequently paid G^odhuo and obtained possessiou of the 
July, 18«5, if the debt due them was not previously paid 
w„?"ir ' f '^ :l"'f' J ^^' "PP'"""' ""''^'-'•^ respondents that their intended sal. 

^::2i::ge "''^"""^''^'''''^'"""^ 

traS::d:Spi:::r' ""' ^^^ the|,i00sha.elbr $30,000, ;„. ' 

rcatvdul"o"f 1^'"^"^'*?' "::' ''''^"' "^^"^ '^'' >^« ^t"*''^ ^^ ofthe v 
In! ;fi .? P,'. "'"''' '*""' '•'' ^^ '''' '"^'S"' »»«* -fraudulent; allegin., 

pee fie acts of f^attd .n support of hi^ .llegations, ,nd asking for a condemnal oa 
in damagcs;to the amount ofthcTalnr. of thi^o o ionft-flf^-., ' 



/ 



\ 



/ 



Eespon^cnt demurred to appcllan 



t's acti'on on the ground 



V 



60 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



ThaUppellant had not put mpondente in default to deliver the stock by a 



*.l 



F. £. Oilman 

A. Campbell «"'*•'■ 01 the amount for which it was held in pledge. 

OS qual. l S"* ^ .^'"^ ""^ ""*«' *''" ••« '"'^ demanded his stocic from respondents. 

3. Ihat he had not given th<5 respondents the option of delivering the stock 
or paying its value. ' " 

On the 28th February, 1885, the Superior Court, Mr. JcsTicfiJETTE, presid- 
ing, maintained this demurrer and dismissed appellant's action. 
"^^,:^ \ A. li. Oughtred, for appellant : 

\^ The appellant contends that the questions of tender of the debt with his 

action, and of the right of option of respondents have really nothing to do with 
Ihe merits of appellant's action. f 

Ho alleges a wrong done hirp by resiK)ndents in the illegal and fraudulent sale, 
' _^ II' °°«-th"-d of >ts real value, of his property, and claiips the only compensation 

tbe law allows him, damages. " ' 

He cannot demand hie property without tendering the amount of his debt. 
Neither can he recover it from tl.o purchaser at the sale, who must be presumed 
to have acted in good faith, and "who, therefore, can hold it against the real 
owner.-consequentfy any such demand would be as useless as unnecessary. 
. Appellant cites Sedgwick Law ofDamages, page 391. Ibid, page 392.' 
btory on Bailments, paragraphs 322 and 349. 
3Iayno on Damages, 2nd ed., pages 284 and 289. 
Field on Damages, sees. 791 and 807, 
Kerr on Actions at Law, page 45. 

»r. //.Crecns^ieW*, for respondent : 
_ Respondents contend that the only question at issue isone of accounts between 
them and^appellant, that appellant owes (hem a large sum of money,' and that 
his on y dction ,8 one to recover his stock upon a tender of'his indebtedness, or 
Its real value, if respondents fail to^deliver it. 
. The following is the judgment of the Court of Appeals 

"Considering that the petition of the appellant, whereby h, claims compen- 
sation m damages for the alleged unauthorized sale by the respondents o f share 
, of Mock of the Eoyal Canadian Insurance Company owned by the appellant is 

" ^:^ considering, therefore, that thercis error in the judgment rendered by 
the Superior Court at Montreal on the 28lh day of Februar;, 1885, ^laintain 
.ng the demurrer or defense en droit therein mentioned as £ se^lZae/Zc 
en droit, and dismissing the said petition ;— 

c•?!^,^'"•^''^. ^" I^»dy the Queen now here doth reverse, annul and set 
J^''*«*''««»'«^J»dS'»«"t.»°d proceeding to. render tbcjMgm^ntwhi^^ 
Superior-Court ou^ht to haverendered doth dismiss the said demurrer 5rcfe/e«,e 

of ttelppellart "''!" "^*'**P™^"^ »PP«»' »S""«* the respondents and in favor 

A 1? A J., J i. „ Ju'^gment of Superior Court reversed. 

— ^ -; -^•'•«- C'MSfw/rerf, for appellant. 

G *em^lhiiiM^^i^ikeork^H^'i}f uertn, for re8^n "S^it au ' 



-'•JS^ ■ 



CQUR DU BANC DE LA KfilNE, 1869. 



61 



COUR DU BANC DE LA EEINE. ' 
(JuBiDicTioN Civile.) 

MONTREAL, 9 BARS 1869. 

Coram L'Hon. Jugc-en-Cbef Duval, Caron, Monk, McKay, JonH^on, JJ. 

DAME MARIE M. ARCHAMBAULT 

* . ■ 

<■ (.(¥po*anie en Cour^^e premiirt inslanee), 

APPBLAtfTB ; 



IT 



DELLE. SOPHIE BLUMHART ^' ' 

(DemanJerean en Cour de premiire ituiancej, 




,» 



' : — '-■ : — -XT' 

THfiOPHILB BOOLfi - . "^^ _^ 

(.Dtfendeur en Cour de premiire instance.) 
JDtili :-l|fiue la vente par le mari'des biens personnels de la femme sans son consente" 
^jH^^ ment constitue une nullit6 de droit (Art. 1298 C. C.) 

Que les actes intervenus entre co-h6ritiers pour faire cesser I'indiyision dun 
immeuble, quoique ddgniaes sous le nom de vente et cesgiojij ont les mdmes' 
eflets que le partage et font de cet immeuble un propre de communaut6-Q '' 
Que la donation falte d'un immeuble par le pJre k I'un des conjoints, ^ fiUe, k ^ 
charge de payer certaines dettes, durant reSisteiice de la communaut^, fait 
de cet immeuble un propre de la communaut6. — —-; 

Le jugemeat dont I'appclante demande I'infirmation a 6t6 rendu I 'ilontr^al ' 
le 30 novembre 1865, sous les circonstanccs 8ui van tes : * "' ' ' 

Le 16 d^cembre 1852, Calixte J^urocher, I'iSpoux de I'appelante, a oonsentl 
une obligafion a Delle. Sophie' Blumhart, I'intimdc, au montant de- £160 
"devant Gladu, notaire ; et pour saiete du paiemcnt^t^ette somme, il a hypo- 
, th^qu^ "une terre sise en la scconde concession de la paroisse St Antoine, con- ' 
" tenant deux arpcnts de front ^ur trente-dcux de profondeur, tenant dcv^nt^u 
" chcmin de la Reine, derridre h Francois Gadbois, du c6t6 nord-est, a Joseph 
" Meunier dit Lapierre et du c6td sud-ouest i Pascal^Brunclle, 'sStes batissc." 

Plus tard, gavoir, le 25 juin 1859, Calixte Durocher a vendu cette terre d. 
Th^ophile Boule, par acte pass4. devant Migneault, notaire, k St. Denis, et le 11 
mars 1862, Delle. Sophie Blumhart a poursuivi ce dernief en ddclaratik d'hypo- 
theque pour le montant de £41.^13. 4 et intdrets, balance due sur un jugfiment 
qu'elle avait obtenu centre Durocher en vcrtu de sea obligation. " 

Thdophiie Bou\6 d^laissa le 28 mars 1862, et un curateurlit nommd entre 
les main's duquel I'intim^e fit saisir la dite terre. L'appelante's'est oppoi^ ^ la 
vente de cette terre pour les raisons ci-dcssous^nonc^es, et-c'estdu jugement 
repdu sur cette opposition qu'elle intcrjdtte appel. . : 

Par Bdufcontrat de mariage avec ie ditCaUxtc Durocher, passtf 4 St. AntoJte^ 
devant Bourdage, notaire, le 4 juin 1826, il y "cut stipuldtion de bom^iuniai^^Je . 
biens, et il fut d^lar^que ceux de la future ^pot»se, con-sistant en ioxaws droits 
mobiliers et immobiliers, lui demeurcraient propres do son c6tdet ligne.. H fut" 
en outre stipule qu'avcnant la disaolu tinn Ho h comiflUDautd.. 




••SI' 



y renonyant de reprendre tout ce qu'ello y aurait apport^, ou ce qpi lui a^jait 



... « 



62 



COu'R DU banc DE la KEINE. 186& 



?r Arctit ^Jl" r^""«««»>^". <Jonat.on, logs ou autrement, ,anB fitra tenue d'aucuno dette • 

l„u!t n» h>m)th6que ord^e par U communauM, quoiqu'elfe s'y m oblig^'e ou qu'clle y 
Peire.^ophie '^^ ^^^^ "ondamn^c, dont ella serait ncquittdc ct indottini«5o par le futur 4mx ' 
Blumbrfrt'^Ou par Vw h^riticrt: . ; ' ' - ■ 

T. bVm,W f^;^\f'}^^oi,deLcomiauntxxt6, k nidro do I'appclante, Reiho Coderre' 
^t4.t d<Jcdd<5o, .1 fut prpc^dd par l'6poux eurvivonf, Ignaoe Archambault, et sci 
•; e»JH..t«, «u partftge dea biens de la ootninuoaute qui avalfr cxistd entre lujiit feu» 

son dpou^e ; ct par ce pwtagc, il fut constatd quHl Stoit redovablo A ohacun 'de 
»_jei«ifi<atg a^Minbre dBSqucIs ae tr^ve I'appolante, tlo Fa «ommo do\.uatre ceot . 
*eipqui,Dte.dcur^ livres dix-sept sou., nncien coflra, pour Icur part dan. los blen. - 
in,dbles do la dito coiamunauf<$ ; laquelb .on.nie nux tormea de son contrat de " 
...mago avc« le d.fDurooher, est sortie nature dajjropre de communautlTraJ'^ 
pelante. " v * , " 

Les liens immeublei de la dite coinii,unau< au hombre de sepCfurent 
^div.8^8 en deux lota et pv»ag^s entre le dit Ignacc ArchVmbault^t scs enfant** 
la part appartenant Aces derniJh, rftant oepcndnnt demeur^o indivise entr'eux ' 
^-Le 8 jiiinJ8a7, les hdritiers de feue Reine Coderre, L'nppelante, ijes frircs et 
ioBurs, pour faire cesser I'indlvision do cos blens, se sont mutuejlement cdd^ par 
divers oetes pass^ le toSme jour, A.St. Antoine, devnnt -Beaudry, ngtaire, leur 
part dans les immeubles qu'ils teuaient^en commun, et qui leur provenaieDt de 

Ja succession de leur inAre.. Ces di,vers^aotes, disguises sous les nomsAe veotes 

, cossions^et tfcbanges. ont dai« le fet^ eonstitu^ un partage mbyetfnant Icquel les 

Wntiers Vt nlont rien retonu en immcubKont lran8port<5 leur part'a leurs co- 

■ , •»'<5"tier«j^uienretourleurenontpay41a valcurenargeht,etiorficens^8ivoir ■ 
^ '7""»P»'^V ''e'^-J^«i'esn'on<le.ieursco-h^ritiers,maisdu>e^^^^ 
... - , e,le-n.eme, et lui avo^r succ«$d« immddiatemcnt pour le total, A la charge de payer 
I'S •ommcs OQUvenues a.leurs co-h^ritiers pour leur tcnir lieu de leur pa^t ind^ 
• ° termmee dans oes immeubles. '_ \ - J > ,* 

lAffet de ces divers aetes fut d'attribuer A ra^pelanto dne parUo de I'im- 
meublo suisi i la poursuite doi'intim^e, et h la v^nte duquel elle s'oppose le 
reclaiuant comnao propre de coBJtnuuaut^. ~ . ' 

' Quant a I'aut're partie de cet immeubic, elle lui fut ^ttribule i eUe et A son- 

^ .? *poux le mSme jour savoir.je 8>in. 183Y, par acte ras8^ devant le mfime 
. notairc, par s^n pire Ignace Archainbault, qui lui en fit donation nioyennant lA 

somme de quatre mille six cenf wpgt-deux livres quatro sous, anciens coufs; sur 

^ '»q"«"«. «>»™e lea ditsdonatairesdevaient-gardercelledfi mille livres ancien 
cours dont le donateur. fit do| a I'appolunte en recompense des bon, servrces 
. quelW lui aTait/rendus; cello de quatre cent oinquante-deux liVres, dix-sopt'-' 
- sous^ ancienisours, pour le mon^int des droits mobiliers de Tappelante dans la 

4. . suc^essionde sa mAre, et dontle donateur lui <5tait comptable ; quant ii la balance. 
W^onataires etaient obliges de I'employer k payer les, detteS du donateur comtoe 
S9it:,«hufrerederappelante, quatro cent cinquante-deux liyres, dix-sept wus 
, aneien cours, auss. pour ses droits mobi^rs d<nis |a succession do sa-m Je, el.fia * 

4 la spccession de feu Pierrre Gutfrout, celle de mille sept cent huit livres. neuf 



souffi^ 'oncien cours. 



D'apr^s lecontenu de cet act^' de donation, des circonstanccs sons Icsg uelles il 




CO^R DU BANC DE LA REINR,i86{i; ' 



V 63 



Illf ! Sf' '* T ^f f'^"'^"!'"* """"?•' "^^ autrc^nqtcs'plua h.ut citds, lesWin- D.m. Miale 
cip^s I^goux il rfsultoVe la paytie de'l'immfeubll mW, donniJo A rappilantLarM- ^""S" 

<SD0UX. maiH An <>nnfrnirW AU .._ j-_ i. •. . ' -^ii ~ •« «« q"u 



T. BouI6. 



bault 

i^poux mais aucoDtrair^ fut un don fait par- aocommbdemeo^de hhmlkk^'^''^^^}" 
ryla„^j.«,uV concurrence da la sonLe do^mJllo liX en^ ^Z^ Bia.w» -^ 

«.tat^e8 plus hdut m,„(.oht,dcs, T'excedant luf ajant ^t6 attribu<5 pour lui tetak 

^ubMonn^epar I, d.t acte de donatio-na ft^ etest ,n pfopre de communauTd 
■dontia jou.«ance devau appartcnir a la communautd, IJ charge parl'appl 
St Ward T ^"":'"" "^"^'^^ ^°"' P"*^'^» dettcs'irnti 2e^ 
et Upoux de appelanto a„it sans droit ppur le jendre. £aW qu'il In a 
faite sans a«tor.«at.on de l^ppclante » produit aucun effet qua^A^ Lr 
clle ne I'a jamais ratjfiee i H"""" » w'c, qa^ 



Pustard;8nvo.rle>28avrill862.-los bl^DS deJ-ippelanteWt ^.^ mi, e'„ 
p^nl par la p.^„ anoistration dc sfin .^pouWtp JDatoehe^f elle .Mi^^^ 

ZlT '"'•""?,'' '' ' "P^^"^^ ^«^'V '«no,5a par Le paJ^ d .ant 
Marcot te, notuvre, L la commuftautd de bien, qki avait exji*^ entr'eux. A^x 

» Sr . rr """T '^""""''^* '* *" '*'''" dc'alli.p^sitionlde droit, elle ^t«it 
' fonddo A r^olamer de son^^poux 4 litrc^der.prise et de remploila^ v^^^^^^ 

e qu.Jj.^sMchu durant la coa.»J„i,te A tit., de propria et ^^ 

«ra.t pu disposer lcs„argent8 qoi'l^ ^„ ,ont Uv.^,,e^ dereprendre en vffeur 
Ics immeubles qui lui sont ^chus k tit^fi de propree '1 ^^ ' ""^^t 

• 'S : Srf " * ^r'^'*^" ''"* P-^e <?* p^rtie^p.r*donation ,«« iui en fit son 
p6re,est «n propre'de cotnn.unauti|.de.l'aptela„te, et elle «iart fondle a s'op- 
. poser aj«,SaiMto8etv6ntes]^>atiqu#spiirl'ihtimee - - "^°P 

.rl'lf 'tZ '^^"''* ^^•'♦toopposijion^ piaik^: • l;.Que I'up^linte n'avaU 
p s 4H a«tor.^e par son Ipoux it-fuira tllle oppositio^l. et partantTs conclusions 
devaientetre;ertvo}^(jis en droit, ^ •- '• > • ^'UBwns 

1 acte le- vcTnta par son 6poux k Bou^ ce qu'dle n'avait pas foit ■• ' 

h<. n ^V' "T ^"f ^' *' 8;uin-1837 n'ont'pas eonstitue un partage, alLsi ^ue ' 
pr^Oeudu par.l'appeknte, ™ais ^taient de v^rilaijles ,ventes, eTque 1« pr L?"t 

^ in,6n.e les demlprsde la co™mUpaut^i|ln,meuble safai (dont 17dentit^ e^ 

mmu 





■.:*\ 


; j '■ '; 


^\, 






1 






; / 


•*'* 


■ \ • 




., cr^aoce b^potl^^ean-e sur cet inimcuble pour la sonime deiiill^livres ancien ^^^ 

> ^coui^^utlajadt^d^nn^eparsonp^reenrdeonapensedeses bona fervices, et \' ^^ 

celle de quatre cent cinquante-deux' livres dixl-sept iou, ancie» wuii, «. part ' - 

dans leg btcna menblea dc sa niere. ■ ... «' ■ [■' ^ ' ^ '^ ., 



-Vt 



■■*' ■; 






.A.; ;:■:■ .' 






54 



COUK DU BANC DE ^A REINE, 1869. 



nnml^ Marie 
M. Arcbam- 
baOlt 
et V 
Dolle bopliio 
{ilumliart 
;> et 
T. Boulo. 



m 



t 



- 'c 



' 3o Ktcopuon.-Qu'on>ppo8ant quo iHmthoublo on quoation »o>ait un 

proprc do ctfmnmnaut,5, lo i^ de ruppolantd avait le droit do l'al?rfoer, ot y 

" etail aut,iriso par son contrat-dtb^arii.go. Quo Ic» souli draits quo put fuire 

valoir 1 ..ppclantc ^trjicnt ocuk doVmplois tant m lo^ \,iom do la commu- 

nnuU) quo 8ur coux do sonmnri. \ - 'x * 

"Jo Exception. -Quo i'immeublo 8a\mt-il un propro do corainunautd, ' 

1 .ntuneo aurait lo -drttit d-Btro myde doVordanco « .ue.ne lea imponses et 

amc-liorutionsfaitcssu/ ootimmMlopar lucdiu«mnaut6MV iaquollo I'appalanto 

avail rcDonoe. L'intimd ostimo pes in.pon.e/Xla soin.no do dix .nilfo livrcs 

. .^BOicn cours; et doraande que I'appelautc. dcbiftV do I,i .oouununau(e pou,- 

iLcctto somnie, no soitddcIanJ<iproprictaircde riu.mcu% nu'i la char«o do paver 

" la crdanco do I'intimde." ^,_— -*-^ ^ '^ f J 

L'appoliint^ a r6pondu A .la sccondo exception wvoir : ^,'!k ifu!t tmrnm 
lo! dr d^muffer lu >'escMon ikVact^ ie vente/altpar mn mnkh BouU, mvoir,. 
lade ila 2bjuin 1S59, quo l-ali^atfon dcsproprcs dolafemtuofXo par lo mari 
Sijasson consenteirteiit eat nul ot ne pout aflFcctor ses droits. L\oapaoi(e du 
mar. a al.dncr Ics prdpres do la femmo vient do son defaut do pOuvSt qui rend 
nuls les octes |u'ils f,ut 4 son prejudice sans son autorisation. Cost uXnuUite 
de droi^.lr^ de la Coutume de P«ns) qu'il suAt d'alld^^uer pour ikfairc 
prononflcfcsa^setre oblige^ la deiiiander en ju^iico. Ddnizard Col do Jur 
to^ Ilf. Vcifbo nuUitds, p. 369. I , \' 

/L\s.nnUim (tallies. par les Coutuifieset les Ordonnancns rendent nul deplX 
drort lactequi en est infecti. II Buffit de V alUguef i>^^r la fubc pron6ncer'suns 
qii il SOU nicfssaivejrohtcnir des lettres de rescisiom, 

^ Bourjon, Droit Com.^o la France, tome ler... p. 673, Sect. III. Sur I'artielc 
22(> de lu Coutume. '^ " ' - 

Parlcmemeprindpe 4q cJiarge, rhj/pofhiquc, la smitade que k mari a 
imposUur la propriifi s'ivanouissent de phhi droit. (Test la suite de son 
djfaut de pouvoir sur un ttWnen. Cest la suite d^ la disposition tfe hc 
Coutume. > * 

Jl est i^ propos de remnrquor jci que I'hjpothiique consentie par Calixte Duro- 
cher i riotimde par I^acte du 16 ddce mbre 1 852, I'a dte par: ce dernier seul sans 
I'autonsation de sa femme. Quoiq^WW dit cn-cet note : « 0«< co»Miar« „ 
Cahxte Durochcret Dame Jilai^ie Milanie ArckanibauU son-dimise," I'appelafttc 
n'a jamais dte partie A odt acte, et^pour . faire valoir sa rdclamatibn en justice, 
rintimee a du diriger son action contro ie mari.seul. ^ 

La vcntc de la chose d'autrui faite sans droit, ne pent jatanis pr^judioier au 
tiers, lequel lasuifcentre quelques mains qu'ellc so trouve. Jl peut toujours 
revendiquor sa propridtd, sans qu'il soit besoin 4'instruire un procds pour faire 
rescinder les actes au moyep dosquels il en a6t6 ddpouiUd, sauf autiersA 
ddbattre avec ses-garants. "> 

En rdponso k la« pretention de I'intimes, '' que les actes passis le 8 Janvier 
" 1837 entre I'appelante et sesco-hdriticrs sont de veritables cessions ondreuses 
" et consdquemntent ont fait de Timmeuble en quesj^ un conqufit de comma' 
" •»''»^;;^J'"PPel«nte pe craint pas d'affirmer jjjje^te proposition .subversive 



:^\' 



r'" 



\ 



'I. Sar rartielu 



COUR DU BANC DE LA RErNE?1869 



a: 



65 



<le. pn^ipc, do droit qui r6«i«Bo„t U partakes et aocommodeujonti do famille „.„« u , 
nc^ur u rccevcr uno nt.ention fuvorablo do eo tribunal. Il^«t'do droit quoSTrctit 
lea ncfe^i ,„torveau« cntrc co-M.itlcr., aous quolqu« titro o« aoua quelquo form. ^f 
quilsaicnt ot« passes, n'ont pns un effot trannlatif do propriifi,5 fm)tent-ila A Dell e Sophie 

tureon^roux. I/l.^ritior a-ljudiontairc „W point u„ acquw' ^tol ""It''' 
avoir toujours eu^Ia propridt^ du bien qui lui a di6 cddd ^ T- BoulOl 

Si^,,km.», dit Calloz, Jur. d.^Roy. Vol. 12, p. 514, ,i un pHre Lndonn. , 
fsyn/untsiousdo, to,id!tions oni,ru»es, ce qui M revienOLuJla commn- 
nanti entre In, ct leur mire, cl quepdr un actc ppitirieur Vuu 2» eUuntn cide 
mx autre,, e» droits, pour vne ,om»u> dit.^rminfe, it <y « ^„„ la tlUn>„ton 
deproprUti,etiH,v consequent la portion cidie ne reste poin ^umise aux 
hM/<equesq,aiestU'rsavaientp,iacquirircontrelec^^^^^^^ •' 

L^'n.6,.,0 aytcnr dir, A la pn^o 513 du;n.en.o yokm, rL' acq, iisitlon fhite 
penMe vYmUs^d^un immeuble dout t,u,dc, conjoints it,utpropriitaire. ne 
'Jonne doint nn cqnqutt de communmui. ■ 

^(Mtodoctri«e,.confbnne A oelle^Pothicr d^M son traitd «ur la commu- 

Cy^T\ ^'-^^t' ^-F^"' ^'^^"^ ^ ''""^ -^^ Toullicr, vol. 12, p. 205, 
, SSo. 155, et de tous lea auicurs qui ont traitd do celto matiire, a dtd confiimde' 
par un arrOt dd la fcour do cassation en dato du 3 mars 1807 
|n appliquant cos principes i.tlx faif^^h ressort do la nature dos actos du 8 

TWl't^ '^""''*^ ''"'y P'°""'"* '"" P'""^'*^^ «onoernde., d«.la designation ' 

dcsTrnftioubles partages, que ces^ict^s no sont autre chWqu>naccomn,odonicnt 

do f«n..l1o .Bteryonu cntro los l.6ritiors i»ur faira cesser I^ndiviaion doabiens 

qu .is pos^daient en commun, par* Ic n.ojeo duquel coux qui n'ont rien retcnu 

:en .mmeubles, ont rcju en valeur leur part d'ljdrdditd, et qui a eu I'effot d'attri- 

. bu^r a l^ppelunte compie propre de coirtnmnmi Yxvm^hh saisi par I'intimd 

V«mtT!n ^•^r/"'^'''" ^' I'mtimde, Aoir : ,! "Quo lirnmoublo saisi,' 
\mt-.lqn cqnqutt do communautd, le n^ri avak lo drbit commd chef de la 
No«.«,u„aut^ ot par son oontrat do mar?^. de r'S\dner", elle ne ^rait suscep 
•blexle discussion que dans le caa ou.il J aurait >n\effet telle>utorisation par 
lecontratdemrlage. Comme cJjef dc lacemmunnut^, le mari Vest mattroque 
des b.ens qm la composent, mais ce pouvoir ne-' s'et^nd pas au-delA ; il n'a sur 
les propres do sa foaxme qu'un simple droit do gestiod. , Or, par son contrnt de 
mar,age.vee Tappelante. Calixta Durochor u'tait -j^o^^^^ia "I^^ £ 
propres aoccttederniferc. La ^auso q,i par 4n«rinfc. % d^nn^ lieuf^^ 
-^Uon deT^n^^mde^ porto: "^WU W v^ou»lid„^ auc^/bien pv<^ 
ahmou aiautrodes.fut„r^^po„i,:en.plol en, sera fait en acquisition ^ui^ 

cot6 et ligne; et s. 1 emplo. ne se trouvait/aifc au jour d^' la dissolution do la 
^ com„,unay,d, les deniers seront repri4ur les biens de la'dito ^munkutd. I 
B .Is ne suffisont pas i I'^'ard do latfif future dp^s,, sur les pr!preaet.u7rS 
^os du futur dpoux.- Cette cl^usf dtait inutiio.; le „.ari est obligd pa W 
Iofie.fa.reemplo. d^a deniers fm)venautde la vente dos propria de s^^feWne ' 
i.n outre die ne saura.t gtre intp^r^tde . comige^ ude autorisatioa 4 aligner I 
propres do safenme. ^H fuut que ce.tto autoris atiod soitexpresse e. .p4 L 



.^" 



T 



V. 







">" »" 



56 



#1 



COUn DU B4NC DE LA HEINE, 1*9. 



S?A'r?hVm- *^' <'°"";'<"" I'^'PH^nto auraii^ellc pu, par «on contrat da marfogB, autoriier 
bault •<*" """ * nli^ior dea bions qui ne lui lont <ioIiua qua onto anndds aprd.i ? ' 

Delle Bonhfe ' ^""" "" *^^^ Exooption, I'inJimiJo dowando A «kr«' pay^o da ai^ -«rtfano« 4 
BiunihAFi mdir- '-- ' - . -- 



filumbart 

•t 
T. lioul6. 




i-i 



me lo8 impcnsea ot aii.iflioruUona foitca aur riinineublo aawL par la enmmn. 
nam^, et pour le^tjuflles I'appelante est redovoble H h dito oommunaut«de di« 
mille livroa nnoicn coitrH. L'intini^o a u4'^\if^6 de fairo 1» preuve de o'ei impetiwa 
ctnm<?Iioriirinn«) niniH, en ndmitlnnt lour existence," I'inJimde, ortanoidre de 
lo coimtiUhautC' qui a exisfd cn^io le dit Durochor et I'oppelantfe, ne pourrait 
xerocr oontio cette demidro quo pea droits de la comniunautd clle-meine pour oos 
l^^^due^ impcnsos et nnidliorntiono, et sea droits oonsit^eraient en une aimpl* 
cr«ttne«4 or, rappelanto, iV I'eaponfre de cctte' errfance et en compcnsatioD,. 
icrait fond«?o H faire valoir les ^mplois et reprises, qu'en'vertu de 'son contrat 
de manage et do la loi, olio a la droit d'exercer oantre son ^poux.et la comniu- 
naut^, pour rcmploi dorses proprea et reprises dcs aoninics d'argent qu'il a 
rcQucs cont.no ol.of de la oommunwt^ et .dont il a dispoi^os, Ic tout s'^lovant tH 
la fiOnuM .Ic scpl mille uouf cont-vingt tivres prx sous anoien cours, uiasi qua 
constate par le rnpport. du part icien nomm^ pour constitcr ses reprises matri- 
luoniaks. Ttlles 8ont en rij-uni^ les prdtentbns respcoti'ves das parties on 
litige, sur Ksquelles la Cour de prcmioro Instauoo a pronouc^ le jaaora^nt dont 
suitle liLelic. • / . / - . 

Juccnipnt rendu lo 30 novonibre 18657 ■ 

^^ " The Curt having l]e,irdtl| plaintiff and .contesting pirty, and tlio said 
•' opposant hy their rc..pectiv^\CounseI, de novo, upon tlA merits of the oon- 
^tofitation of the opposition of tl^ said DamoM^lanie Archanibault, under the 
" c^treenMf tho said opposant and plaintiff contesting party of record, in this 
•'cause, having examined the proWiug^ the said opposition and the contest- \ 
" ation raised thereto, evidence and dVument, of record, and having deliberated : 
" cojjw^erifig that a conimunity of pVperty, >vas established between the said ' 
. /• ftpposant, Dame Mfiiie Mrflanie Arc^mbault, and the said Calixte Durooher 
" her said husband, in g.e pleadings in) this contestation mentioned, in and W 
" her contractor ujiirringc, dated tholbufth of June, 1826, by'the said opposant, . 
' produced and f/lod with her oppoirti|)n in thisoauso, with reservation hoir- 
' ever tlierein t0 the opposant Af the jl^opret to her belonging and coming as 
"in4he6r.idco,^ract stipulated! to bo* iy. her had and taken upon the event 
" of the (^issolutid^ of the, said cUmuiiitjr between them, and further with the 
' ' Ptipulat^n that in case Of the\ sale or alienation during the «>mmuna«« of 
,^any of t"ho said p)m>re$ of the sU opposant,. then with remploi to her from' 
'the property of thb co»im«na«<4 and failing which then from the propres 
" property of the s^id Calixte ButoclJfer ; considering that during the said com- 
'n^tnauti, the said Ignaco Archambdiilt, jthe father of the aaid Dame Marw ' 
" ^glanio Ardiambault, did give add ci^vey to the said Gallxte Durocher and 
^^ to the said Dan.0 Marie M^h.nio Archambault the rights and pretentions of 
^! the saH Ignaee Archambault, in and to a portion of land situa'ted in the 
I' concessioiKComn.only called Acadic. iUhe parish of St. Antoinfi, containing 
' m the^wholq two arpcnta >in front, by /about thirty-one arpenta in:depth;ind 



7 %'.'-'"^^K- ■■'('. '' 7- 



•./, 



r, r. '•/ n'T~^ , 



COUR DU BANC DE U RKFNE, 1860. 



67 



/ 1 



^\ 



iv: 



/■• 



•t 

T. Bout*. 



;• .,.h.u. «„.,, .,,„«„, .„.,, .,;, ^„,„„ :; :.7 1^/;^';<^72. „„., su 

• Which daposit, thatTe t/atlt^^ ' t''*' '"'««'-'J'°- to la^, fuiling 

vV 1; AtfTORIrfS Dk t'APPElANTE. 

t«.i«iuni!is, iait« sanf son oon<ient^inent Dar son mirf «;» -ii/; j , 

Mawh, Vol. 30— . > / ■ 

■ i ^ ■ , ■ / 



<' 



//■ 



'» 




^f 



.♦ 



/. 



68 



COUR DU BANC DE J^A REINR, 1860. 



SB 



M. Arobani-* 

bauU 
P~ ft 
Delle Mopiilr 
filuiiibart 

ft 
T. BouU. 



( 



>! 



CodoCUII, Art. 1298. ' I . .. -. ' 

Lo mari no pout alidner lea immeublet penonneli de ni femnio i«anii «>• eoni^ 
Dtemont. . » / 

Coutume (]o Paiia, Art. 23%. \^ * . . • , 

La vcnte du propro de la fsniiue f^lio par lo mnri muI cHt nullo. 

Bouyon, Droit Com. dela Fritn6>, Tome l«r I'. 673 XIV. ; 

Cctto nullitd do Hi vcnto du propre dq la fomme ou de liruponitiou d*uD (froit 
«ur ictlui do la part du marl i.«ul, rtS^ulto du d^fuut de pouvoir do lapart du 
nmW qui c>t Ic plHH grand de, lou. Ic» dc^f.iuts, ctqui arjiSantit oo nu'il , f»it 
ianj| droit ni(juolji^, uinci quo Ics atltw. 

Mume, pnf»e X V • S » 

Par le u.e.ne princrpc la ohnrKO, Pl.ypotl,.:.quo, la Bcrvltli.lc qu'il a inipo^^e auf 
le I^rop,e Jo sa remme sVvanottJBScnt dp ploin dr-li ; c'cst 1« suite de sou diJfaut 
do pouvoir ]im uh tcl bien, c'tst la ^uite de la dispositirn de la coutumo 

Durnnton. y,.l, HI. Pa^p U6, No. 320, du- coivim^^e „,„ring., .i le mnri 
avail vendu rin.meulle de fiaiemnie -ana son coDsectement co ne sorait paa una 
action en re>ci,iou qu'iiurait la fcnimc ce serait I'uotion en revendication nronro- 
oicnt dito. '^ ' 

Merlii, Rop. de juris. ton,e. 10. P. 238. Puissance mqrhale. Dun, la plupart 
deaooutumfs le n.ari pout aWnor les fonda rot^urierS ou propres do aa femnre lor,<- 
tju ello y consent ; muU quand elio n'y a pas conscntf, I'di^Jnation cstnulle- 
en aorto qu'ello pout, apres le dicis do son mjiri, rentrer dans aca bifloa aWu^.' 
^<ins yM elie ait hetoin de kllres de re»d»!ot^ "^ -.,.„„-. ' 

I>ouizait, Collection de Juris. Tome III Verbo nullity, p. -Sep. 

Lra iiullites drablicsp.r les coutunios ct Ics ordonnan<?o.»,'rondent nul de plein 
droit I'ucte qui en ct infccd. II soffit do rall^-ue^ pour la fairo prononoer 
8.int qu il M)it iiiScosHairo d'obt^fri^r do Icttres de rescisioq. * 

J> .!U. Uccuoil <rc Legislation >our I'annde 1842, p. 221 do la 2dine partio 

31 .no Gt'ininaid, atfiqunit un ucte de partago d'i.mnoubl« accept^ pour ello 
par son n.ari soul, et sans nutorisatlon valable. On lui reprooha de n'avoir pas 
demaiidtS la nuliitc^ de I'ncte dans les 10 ans. 
"JuittS. , " ' 

^ Quo la proscription do 10 ans no pouj pas avoir couru coi^fre la fomnio 
Geii:inord, inmqadk ne pouvait (tre feme de recount d V action eu retcUum 
pourfa^re anmder un acte dans lequel elle n'dait pas partie, et qu'ello consemit 
le droit d attaquer jusqu'au moment oi il lui acrait oppose. • 

2ime ^«e«^0H.-.Le9 netes iotervenus entro co-h^rl tiers ayaot pour fcut de 
faire cesser I'lndivi.ioD d'un immeuble, ces actes d^gui^^Js sous los noms de vento 
*t cession, ont-il les mSmes eSets que le parfagc, et font-iis do cot immeublo un 
propre de communaut^ ? ' 

Sime, $UM<,o«.~La donation faite d'un immoublo parle p^re 4 I'un dcs 
conjoint-, sa fille, A charge de payer certainos dcttes, durant I'existence de la 
communaute, faite e% do eet immeuble uo propre de commudaut^ ? ., 
Pothier Traitd des propres, Article III, Sect. lire. [ 

Lc8 donations ct lg| leg, qui n o m ,onfr /aits puc uua p^i-o tt n.ArB oo antrcg 



8ann ro« enn^ 



^ le ou auti'CT ^ 



CODft DU BANC DE La RELVE. ISgQ. 



60 



tt 

BouU. 



mmmm 

Lo ni«nio (k la comoiunnutd Xo 140 

«..i.^K d. „„„. ,„.,„ „i,.,„.,"i^ ,„„„„ .o«x^ itsp;; 

LoBiun, Dc8 Saccessrons, p. 128, No 25 " - '' 

Apr^B avoir tr«i,<$ des proprcs quo foment los succcsions, lin.W parfer d* 



f 



U memo auteur, pago 129, No. 30. # y.- / ' 

Qiie Bi le pdre donne A son fil. d la charge de p.vor ses det'^« 4„.i..'i 

charge quUtait attach^« A cette donation dtait impov/oTu iLj 
douataire efit <5»^ nWi„^ j i. i- ""Poseo * la Buocession, et le 

en cette mtiiro, les donations comme dcs successions anticipAss et au'il n'v . 
JP 0.ntdeb.ens dans I^ suc cessions, qu'npn^M^ie lo . .^nttnVn r ;; ; !;:!: !: ^; 



M. 



K 



.»Ura. a, a.re^«-une donation fUite par un p^re, a la charge dopayor scs 



•:^- 



60 



k. Jlrcb«a- 

y^ iMilU 

DttU Hophia 
iMonhart 

♦ •I 



COUB DU BANG DB LA BglXK, I8<9. 



d««ti*, n'en e<t pa* m<>in>< uno dnnation on arnnocnKjiit d'liolrl*, quoiqu* U 
clur^'o <}mnp<.lo i\ I,,- IiUralit,!, ooniiiio lo dun/itoira o'auruit pu dioIm 6x4 
Uritkr, eucun quo 1» <JtttM tuaMsnl ooti«otiiiii4 loui Ira bitnida la auccwjoo, 
ct que pur eonft<(|nent eitle duqution no doit pniitt paMor pour uno vento qui 
fuMt un aoqu*f, bikIn pour uno aueooRxion ai)(iojf)4a qui f.iit un proprt. 
BoufKoon, J>ioit coin, do !« Frnncfi, T.imo hr. p. 4 13, SuO. H Pur. IV. 
Dana In tli^ao j^^ix^rojo tout Imoicublo rooucilli par iucccaaion cat propro, e'ati 
U lol qui I'k dooorf, c'ltai |a Trnio anuroo dtta proprua. 
TaKo 4U I'nr. IV. ' ' • 

Celt* qiulilA d« propio iupriui^o par la ioi 4 1'iinnioublo rooucilli par aucooaaion 
ne ocaneruit paa, cnoora quo tout lo prii do I'iinineubiv fQt dA p^r lu d,jr«iit, et 
.,uo aon li^ritlor IVOt uc^^nkH, o'c«t ncci.lent qui no chango pu U iiaiuro'de 
. la choHc, et In qu^littS quo la Ioi lul « iiapriii|4«. 

-Popto 416, p..r. XXrV; " " pr ^— — — -,- 

Mnia In charg* q.iu lo p,ire a lmpo«<!o h la donation d'un fiumoubl., pnr la» 
fintc 1^ aon flii ou autro diMocnduiU, de p^^rr u, dette; n'ompdoho pm que toi 
iiunioublo no aoil propro au fili ou 'no potit-fik donotaire, eitooro quo \cn dottea 
(Iqiiipollont i k »«leur do rinimoubk; o'eat toujour! dboation oo %rio dirooto 
dcocon Junto, et actc qui produit octto quality. 

Pl-o 420, Soot. XLI. . , 

\ Cell* nurait li.-u encoro quo I'immcublo cxc^ddt aa portion Ii<5r<5dit8iic, ct quo 
pour ce, il cut p»y4 aoulto ; e'est toujours un bien hiSr^Jitaiio et I'effv t d'une 
liqiii liition et aote do raruilk 

Lll LIT. Cola uuK.it lieu encorb qu'il cftt paj<J aa Roulte d<%e» Voffo* 
deuicrK, ct que duns aiin lot il n'y cut auciina deniers ni cffc|s mobilioys pour 
ttcqiiiticr In aouite ; meiMX roison quo oi-doMu^ e'en bien patrimonial. • * ^ 
Dtniiurt— Col. do JuriX, tonio U, p. 739, par.3, 4. 

Loisqu'un l.^ritier ooquK^t en totulit^S la chosi dont il n'ovait quo partie, 
cctto aequiHition no lui en trnn\ftro paa la propridt^, mais confirmoTolle qu'il avait 
di-jA, en faisunt cesser Vindivi$.- Ce n'cst paa uno uiutatien do propri«St<5, niai» 
tcuteuient uno consolidution. 

Ce prjncipe a fii6 lu juriaprudooec sur la question autrofois trds controvors<So 
dosavoirai I'li^rifigo adju-4 par lioitation A I'un dea IxSritien., lui est propro 
pour In totulitd ; I'aflarmativo no souffr^plus itujourd'hui do difficultt«, 
Memo auteur; tomo IV p. 42, par. 4&. 

A regard do la donation d'immeuble en ligne diroote dcsoeodante, olio fait 
propro de succession, parce que tout Co qui est ' donn<S ^lu descendants, est 
Inputs donn^ en avanocment d'hoirie, suivant I'urt. 278 d| notre Coutumo, et 
que i'art. 246 porto quo oIioho iiuineuble, donn^o en directo, ne tombe Mint eo 
conin]unaut<$.' - i 

Toullier, tome 12, p. 2C3, No. 155. ,' 

L'acquisition fuite pendant le mariago & tltro d'aoqniBilion ou uutrement,^9 
portion d'un immeublo dont I'un dcs ^pcux ^tait propri^taire par indivia, lie 
forme point uii cowqufit, sauf h indotuniser la communatitii do la sommo qu'cll* 
a fournie pour c rite ncquisition. 

L a d i a p oa Uion dt 'e t.1 m t i e le n ' e at p o int du droit noa f flflO. . ' ' ■ ' 



^O^R^V BANC m LA RErNK. 1869. 



•«,. 



61 



8'il« Hoot plu*iouri MfUitn. «om nont dttdtnjtat mIiI. • «* ««,«-. i . . 
«hwun ii« pout <|(r« oo»iittfl « dit-rZ^J . ' *■• '' P"* ''* f'*'"* «•"• 

D.II.8opfcit 

•» 

T. Bduli. 



M m«me torQ|M lur ch<i.|i)b parU« drt bi«oi iudivJi 

•ft p«rti.K«, il uaoquorra jw.nt ur,« proprWK ooiftll, I| «'- /!!! V i 

rr;:!*:; r '""^ '•" '^"' '•"•"^^'''- *--ot o„™\ , j;„^^^^^^^^^ 

I. n..uro do, bicn.. II. „« pc„,,„, ^ partnger «,mn.«dd„.u, il f.i"b « .a «„ 

Mtmiil'iin do* r-' fillliiiiitMliiil iiou* U L.i 11- 
AronMU it. co„<,««u ^1301 1 . U Z/ 7 ^" r"" "^"''"-"" ^ 
.principal; du Dr.u KoZfu^SBpit'* "*" """'' ''""'• '"«^''*'" '^ 
Lo« liciintion. «j»nt lo mflme obj«t due Im St»^^ „..i . r 

Lart. 1408 en dUposaiit que rituineuble abniidoiit^w^ ,.« ' j . . 
, de. ^poux pour le rcuplir de oo qu'il |„i dc^^t Sl(^s i h * ''"" 

. o^ re«« rf.«e auraft «„. toute autre caul ^ ^^^^-^.^au c«. 

P.igo-402 du nifimo volume. '...,. . 



m 



62 



COUB HfJ BANODE LA REINE, J?6». 



Dame Mnrie 
U, Archnm- 
baiilt 
et 
Delle Hopliie 
Bljimhnrt 

et 
T.Couli-. 



I 



* 



I * 



Pourqnoi oblip:crait-pn leg parties qui sont dispo!>^c|,&:trtiitflr nmiablemcat, de 
fiiirc IcB froft d'uno licftation ? Lfs roisoos qv»i exduent los bjpothd'ituos priaes 
Bur le bien lifcitis par Ics co-b^ritiers do I'ltdjudicatuiri^, ilappliqnent h la ve»te 
nmiiible non nioiii* qu'il lit vertte judj^ciaire;, I/i^rticle 140S eemble trnnbher 
•catto question ; c'elt en vcrta dp principe dje.fajrticlo 883"qa'il 8t(itue «n oes.' 
termcs,: " L'acqnisitioo fiiite pendant lo niajlttge, & ritre diB lidtation OM\_'t«<«- . 
" ment^ de portioo d'un ijniuoubl«^dont 1!ud dl-s' ^{tdux tjtuit propri^taiVe par 
" inditis, ne forme poiut,< on conqudt." . " \ \" V . ■ 

' Cette lirterpSr^tation a ^ti> cobfiruiec par la jurispruden(M».„." 

jD»rai^tixn,:Voll4.P^-e2flV ■ ', :'* ' 

^ liio do'n d*tmineubl^» fait i I'un dos lupous pendant le^tiiariage avcc des 
cbflr^es M^ine par autre qu'-nsceQdant ne ee^^e pas pour cela ^'^tre propre d. 
l'^pouxddDa4aire pour 1rv,toWHt4 sane r^ompcBS^ 41a comtuunuut^. 
'^ Latiifiinapapo 267. . ' ' "■ 

..L'artide H08 d^xside attf)8i,x|D(0 llmmeublt piropre 4 I'^poux co-proprietaire 
^ par indivis, encorerque ee*oil aitfrement qwe sur licitation, q'u'il se 6oit rcndii 
acqu<!reur de la portion des ^iitves <o-propri^taire!), par ezemple d'upios uno 
transaction faite avcc eur bien niicux d'apr^s une ventc faite k I'amiablo. Cette 
trans'actioin a peut-gtre„CB.feffct pr^venu une licitation sur laqucUc il cut pu se 
fQndre adjudioatairc, ello n'apas moins d'ailleur.'S fait cesser llndivision. 
Rousseau de Laconibe, Rec. de Jur. Civ. Yerbo Communaut^. 
Partte 2i3fe,-Scc. lere. - 

Imiiieubl€s!don)ids par contrut de liiariago auz deux conjoiats ou il I'un d'euz. 
pdr r;isccfldant de I'un d'eux sont census donnas aux descendants du donateur 
' si si^peps(^e_ne parait ^videtument contraire, * 

« lie nigme^ Yerbo propref=, p. 509. 

Donation par ascendant ou descendant h la charge de pajer scs dettes 
ju.squ'i!l certaine somnie est propre quoiquc la charge egale la valeur des biens 
parbeque Ton considdre ces donations com me successions anticip^es. 
, 'Dclvincourt, Vol III, Page 19. 

^ Quid. — Si un imtneuble a ^tQ.< donntf par contrat afe mariage aux deux con- 
joints mais par I'aescndant de I'un d'eux '^ % 

L'on pensait aqj^ennement qu'4 moins q'une intention ^videinmeut contrairj, 
la donation dtait cens^e faite au descendani du donateur seulement. 

je ne vois aucune disposition du Code Iqui s'oppose % ce que cette decision 
soit admise et je pense qu'elle pourrait pagine Stre jinpuj^e sur I'urticle 911 
qui consid^re I'^poux de I'incapable comme une person^ interposle de droit. 
Coutume de Paris, article 276. 

Mcubles ou immeubles donqes par pSre ou m^re k feurs enfants sont r^put^s •- 
donn,(£» en avancement d'hoirie. 

. Code Civil duBas-Canada, article 1276. . - . .v^. ^._ , . „ '. 

A I'dgard des immeubles les dona.tioi^s par con^at de mariagcf y compris celles 
faites k cause de mort, celles faites durant le manage, les 1^ faits par I'ascen- 
dant de I'un des ^poux ^ont k cclui d'entre eux qui lui ' es| successible, sont k 
I'autre & moins do dScniyatiOn ezphcite. an contraire ne sent senses luitcs qu'4~ 
r^pbux successible ct lui demeurent Ju'opres comme ^quiDolleuts a successioo . 



■W 



r.;; 



•V''..V 



;e avcG des 



cbUR DU BA^fC PB LA BEIXE, 18C9. 



63 



La mem rtgle a lieu lore u.fiuie quo la Uouuliou ou le leg. .out faiu dau8 Icurs Daine Maria 
termeS oax deax ^poux oonjoiii««mcnf. M.Archam-' 

■ .' -L'lntimeoBOuiHct i I'appxu du jugcJmcnt du 30'novcmbro dtrnicr les propoM- ""S' 
tions suivafttes : " J??"* Sophfa 

lo. La donatioi^ du 8 juin 1837; faite par Ignaco Archambault A Callxt^^"?"' 
Durochor ct son.^ppuso Morie M(5lanie Archambault, la prdsente appelante' "^^ '^«'"^^' 
amsi <|ue lea (fivers transpoMs , en date du mC-me jour, par los hdritiers^v ', 
Archaiabault m« dits Durocher ct son espouse, u'on^u couf<5rer A Tberita-e '' ' 
c^dd par 1«8 djte actes, la jJMijlJte deprojms \ l^ ^leMte appelante en aufant 
que par cos divers actes la-WnimuoautS entre Ic dit Durocher et son (5pouse a 
et6 tenue et chargee de payer la valeur du dit bdritagc, Icquel est en cousd- 
quence un conquC't de oette conlttjunaufd. " ^^ i . 

2o. L'opposition dc rlippciante pour etre lua'intcnuo aurait da deuiander k 
rescifclon dc I'acte de vento par Culixte Durochcr.u Tiie<^phile Boule en date du 
25 juiu 1859. 

3o. Que par la clause suivaute contenuo au contrat dj8 mariage dds dpoux 
Durocher. ~ ' 

^^ " S'ils est veridu ou aliend aucuns biens proprcs i\run ou It I'autre" des dits 
I' futurs dpoux, eii.ploi en sera fait en acquisition d'autrcs heritages ou rente 
" pour sortir pareille nature de propre a eux et A ceux de leur cotd et li«ne et si 
" I'eniploi ne se trouvait fait au jour de la dissolution de lit ditc communlutd Ics 
" denicrsseront rcpris sur Ics biens et effets de la dite commuaautd et a'Hs rte suffi- 
'' sent pas i I'd-ard de la djte future dpouse, sur Ics.propres et autres biens du ^t ' • . 
^ futur epoux Taction duquel tiendra lieu de remploi ct sera propre aux dits 
' futurs epoux si leurs enfants et i ceux dto^Jour cote et ligne."* ;■ - . . ' 

II s'en suit, quo dans l& cas oil I'lnimeuble saisi en eet£c caose seraitiropro ' 
de communautd A la dite dame appelante, son dpoux a\?ait droit de le vendre 
comine il I'a fait, et Kappdante n'a quA exercer urfe crdance coribe sa conimu- ' 
naute pour la valeur d'icelui dans le cas >o rempIol n 'aurait pas dt6' fait 
Jaqudle crdance est cependant primde par celle de I'intimee. 4 cau^e ae la priority ' 
de son inscription. XV . ' . 

4o. Que dans le cas encore que co niS^e iin me ble serak propre de commu ' ' 
nautd a I'appclante, cette demiero serait ndatnioins tenue de payer et acquitter • 
la crdtmce de I'intimde sur et, h meme les augmeptations ct impeases feites sur 
iccliii par sa commonautiS avec Calixte Dui-ocjier. " .,1 

00. Que I'appelante n'a jjas dr^it de dematider i conipensei' les impenscs*ot 
augmentations faites par sa couilnunautd^sur; rimmpuble en questiod parses * ^ 
reprises et remplois de prdfdrence i la crd.nce dc Tintiuide, parce que le jtitre de 
crdance de cette derniere a dtf finregiatrd ,nvant le coutrut do iiiaria!?e' de 
1 appelante et alors que les augmentations Jivajentfdtd faites sur le dit imm'eulble 
par la comm.unautd des epoux Durocher et aussi pare* quo cettb cr^ance mgnie . 

de l:innnliinfA »>«<.» ^-- ^»..l,i: ■..■■ . v / 



de I'appclante o'cst pas dtablie par;aucuiie preilve. , ., • / 

L'appelante, si elle a rdellement obtenu unfe sdptiration de biens d'avec soti 
epoux aura it dil prodju' ' > ' . • . 
^■quellos son^ ses reprise*. 



'/ 









\ 



, ^^ 



>•. 



» • » 






64 



COUR DU^^BANC DE LA HEINE, 1869. 



Dame Marie 
M. Archam- 
bault 
et 
Belle Sophie 



i>--' " , AUTORITfa DE L'iNTIMfE: 

Pothier.— Traitd do la conilnunautd, No. 179. 
Biie Dopn.e • "^""s '" donation qui est faite A, Tun dcs conjoint*, durant le niuringe, ik 
Blurahart clauoe que I'h^ritnjre donn^ lui' sera prppre, doit ^re cxpresfie ; ellc no s'infire 
T. Bouli. P*^" ^^ <=« q'j'il a ^te donn*? d, lu ehnrgo d'une substitution ; rh^ritngo donn^ ne. 
laisse pas de totfiber err' c^ ens duns la eoniniunaut^, nvcc laShnrgc d^ la substitu- 
tion ; ct la coninvunautd-venant A se disscudre par la mort de I'autrc conjoint, 

Fos li^ritiers prennent leur paft^dansc'eft heritage et eir jouiirsent ju.squ'a I'ou- 
' vcrture de la substitution." y, - "> K 

V .:.' Lp nigin^, No. 260. ' " / 

(^ " Lorsque 1ft sucoession ^chue i I'un des conjoints durant la communaut^, 
n'c.«t compos^o q,ue d'immcubles, tout nctif en ce cas ^tant propro de communaute 
au conjoint A qui la succession cst^cliue.il d<.it Stre tenu detout le passif, tant 
■• des dettes mobili^res que des rentes; la conimunuuto qui tio' succfido ik rien de 
I'actif, ' ri'on dqH 6tre oucunement tenue, si ce,^ji'c?t des arrdrliges 
ct der- ititei fits qui courronf depuis I'ouvcrturc do U. guccession'jusqu'a 
la dissolution; ccsarrdratrcs et ces int^rfits €tant dcs pljuii'&^.dos revanus dcs 
, . bicns de c«tte succession, lesquels, ainsi que ceujt de tous l^s aut]res■bien8rfu-' 

co^joint, nppartiennent durant tout co temps k la commutfautd," i' 
Le m^nie No, 585. , , <;-- 

:^ I'Orsque durant la cofnmunaut^,riit'ritagerpropfe do' I'un ou de I'autre des 

__„^_:ljconjointa a^td aiiinC', ou lorsque la rente i*opre de i'un d'eux a ^t^ rachet^e et 
quedft connnunaut^ en a recu le prix, 8*il n'a pa^^y^fuit remploi en autres- 
li^rittges ou rentes de la marii^re dont il a ^t^ dit ^^, Nos. 198 et 199, celui 
des conjoints fi qui I'h^ritage tjti la rente appartenait, est crdanoier fie la commu. 
uaut^ de ce prix. ' * , a ^ ■ ' ^ 

* Cela a toiijoufs ^t^ sane difficult^, loVsque par le contrat de-, mariage U avail 

(•i^stipuj^ 4"e cbacun des conjoints aurait remploi dii prix de ses propres 
f ali^n^s dnrantl^'mariag^. A d^faut de cette clause, par le contrat de mariage, 

,.. . .*'3 '^^ nioinffpar I'ali^nation, le conjoint rte pouvait autrefois ^pr^tendfe tucua 
remploi n| jreprise du prix. Comme c'^tait une vole ouverteatix coajoints de* 
'^ :. g'avanfagcr, la nouvelle Coutume de Paris, pour enipgcher ces avantages 
indirects qi^en r^sujtaie'nt, a accords la reprise 'dii prix, quoiqu'il n'y ait 
aucune convention. C 'est la disposition de Particle 232, oA il est^it : "Si 
" durant le mariuge est.vendu aucun heritage ou rcqte pfopre, appartenanto 4^ 
" Tun ou k I'autre dos conjoints par mariage ; ou si lit dite rente est rachct^e}-le 
" prix de la vente ou rochat est ropri* sur 1(BS bieufrde la^commuDaut^ jap profit 
^ " de cclui a qui appartenait I'h^ritage ou rente, encore qu|eo vendant, n'odtlftf 
" '■ convenu du remploi ou r<;compcnse, c| qu'il n'j ait cu aucuoe declaration sur* 
" ce faito." ' ' ■ ^ - , t„ 

:_ La Cour d'Appel a ri^forme Ic jugeteont en maintenaht I'oppositioh dfe 
J':ippelante,en donnantmain-levde de la saisie moins la mdiii^et 2-16e indivi^iSe - 
I'iiameuble saisi, et annulant la dite saisie quant au 8ue|>iuf,^ iivoo 'aiSpena en 
favour del'opposante (iJ. lejuge CaronL rftM.) '' >' *' * '■ 

JiigomeiU.-ri^fot'nn^. '"- — r-v 



<?? 






Loranger et Loranger, pr ur I'appelaii^. ^ 

Cdrtitr, Bominville et JiHou n-'y, pour l'in(im<ie.i 









M±. 



la 



'<■.«.'. 



, f- 



s^ 



X' 



■\ 



/. 



£<^OUR DUBANC 1)E LA-REINK, 1885. 



'65 



DANS LA COUB lUlBANO DB LA RHNB, 1335. 

'*., M0?«TH|4L, 30 DfiCEMfiRE 1885, 

Prints: 3ir A. A. DoRtON, J. C, Les hoaorab'es jugos MoNk, Ram.at 
*' . V Babt. » 

.' t'. A. ,A. DOtaOX • f "? , 

, ll^iftndeur tn Cow ti\firieuT), * 

' -^ - " '. s^D DANIEL CRpWLET 

\ , ' ■ , ^Dfrnatkltur *n C»itT It\ftrieur\ 

* i .• J , ■*,«;- ^i . ^ , . - iNTIKi. 

., Ap^wn de domm^ffes risuha„t de tmti^Jicgve et de mhtM^uvre, /rmdnkum 

employie, pour f aire coter d la bourse det valeitra fictive*, ' ^ * 

de domDo^efrautear de ceg Mnsonge. .nren ceuxqut ftpnt iirfuiU 4' 
•gJr en consequence de ceseijoncosfiiux. „•• • 
, • Le jugement Jl la aurlnf«rieur<r, rendu te^ 30 octobre 1884, Wpliqutf" 
Buffisanmicnt Ic» Cits dc^-cause, H *e lit comoie 'suit •_ " 

(E^nviHe, J.,) " La cour igfes «ir«ir etitwda les parties p&rleuh. aiotsa^s sor 
, , e m^rito decetto wuse ; exaini«^ laVtdceiurc cl les pieces produites, -enleudu 
lc8 t^moins, cour tcnaiite et dj^yir^ ; „ r'" " , ^ V ' >^ 

^ . " Attenda que le dernande«cia\tfe des d^fendeurs lason^e de^Veii'e milfo " 

M«wh«" et Boyd <>»| forifl^ ttne^loaiip.gpie eourl^nom de ''Silver PW^ 
"Mining CompajSy;" • • ^ . , .V ;. ; _^ • *" 

• ,/' *^!^,^^f *?*»™P"^>* «^l«™»58-^e e^^^^^ l^gaiemeii^et qu'eUe 
JJir..t^«t6 d^olar^e.ai^galewent cob-8titu^e en corporation-fcar unjugement de 
, ^ ccjte jH,ur, cwifirmf ,0 appel^..q«e leaj^fend*urs .yiraientldirectement et 
.^ indirectemenl, paf I'entreiiBe de i'uo d€t, l4d^fepde«r Baxter, fait coter 
^_les actions de la dite coinpagpie;^ 1, bourse de Montreal, d'une maniire 
„ ;fV!^t.*^"^r/"''|J^««"^«ote,fictive Ic^itcs actions pa^saient dans le' 
. puWiopour valbir «o^nte et dix^ur cntf^e 3nr la foi de cette cofle 
dctoandeur a Tendu.^fl^ certaine propri^te-4 un nomm^ Chretien pour unel 
. .^..omme de seize mille piastr«r,^ont sept n.llle|^uC cento piastres payables a«x> 
, creancers l.ypo^h^caires.'et huit-mille cent pittres «u dei.af,deur, en actions 
, de la dite^copipagnie, au pair^; et qu'lmDnSdiatement apris i,ue la dite veote " 

fut aceotaphe Je deniandew a d^ouvert que les' dites actions n'.Taient 

. ^^ .ucu^e valeur r^elle sur le ^arch^, et que de fait elles ne Talaient rien ; que 

la d>te venie a ^t^ annul^e par un jfagcnient de cette Cour confirn.^ ea appel; 

^^ ma.8 que le du „Chrdtieh n'ayant rien paye aux ^reanciers hypothZires\,e. 

« ^^wJoVT"^ ' ^'""^^ P'"" •' ^''^"^ ''' P^-^P"^'^ ^'''"^«« P" •« demandeur, 
^^ditChr^t,?n; que la collocation des or^anciers, apris Ics frais pay^Js, n'a 



I? 




<■ -tk 



^ ^ qae-ponrnno soiamo-do qwttre jailla deux otnts pl^fltyas; au^ Wm^ 
:,^- propn^t^ valait bicn la ditesomwe (Te .seize miUe piastW*t que ifdemandeur 



-^fe^ 



'ttms-:-z 



^ 



■ . ■; 



t*f-"- 



^ :■:•■.>":#.,,. 



ee 



GOUR DU BANC DE Li^ REINE, 1885." 



L.A.Dorion" a soufiPcSn do? doiriwages pour lu difference ^hUq ja collocation cfb valour 
Crowl-7. "'^elledesa propri^te, Boit onio millo huit cent* piastres; ({ju'on outro il a 
"'fuitdes/d»:'bour*>«5s dans son proems ct dans son opposition , A Vobtention par 
•Mes d^ferideurs d'une cliaite devunt lo parlemwt ; Icsqurfs dSbouMs, pji^'ct 
" dt^umiclics ct pcrtes de temps lu* ont causiS dcs domm«go8 pour lasoninw de 
" dtux wiilo piastres ; r " ' " . , 

" Attcndu que ics dt'ftndijurs Dorion, l)'oucet et Masson pluidcut quils n'ont ' 
" jamais rept^<cnt^ nu publii? quo la dite comnognie avait un fcapital pajtS-eit ' 
» " ardent, niais quelle avuit uijc niinc dont In Valeur «<tait copsiddrable, qile let, ' 
. , " ditesonctions ont et^ coiecfl /i\ la hdutso sui^an^ le cours ordjnairo et "qtfo la 
" tentp IVito par le di^feudeu/ Dorion et^it dufts k cour*.brdi^air6 des,offi»ires; 
ff m " '^V^Sjf ^"'®'® ''''"^ la, cote "n'a eu lieu qu'ii la suite^de la Busp^iAsTiMi de j 
I " <^'i,4'4» ftravaux duns la itiine cxplojt^o par 'la-ditc gpnipo|nie, que la-dite^; -^ 
" pro]()fi|t4 ^^tait greV^e" d'uhe bypoth6(yie''de s^t'ftulle ncur.cents piii^^^^^^^ 
''q6V'%^nfi'vaiait pas;plu»,aldira>et qu'clle ne vai(t;jfas''^«iiiiBteBttrit. ^lua* -1 
," que 1» tljte pc^mnie de sept niiilc nedf cents piaj«A-esj ct ^ttendu qjioles ,'' 
" dits d^fcndcurs, Dorion, Doucet 'et Mawon plaidant cooWe qu'ils a'cnt fuit , 
"^cune transaotfSn iV la l)ouisc, et n'ont pas cu connaissanctt'de cellos qui S 
" auraienn§t<S ftittcs : - v ' ' "*„•>': 1 /■ 

' " Attendu que lo defendcur' Biixter pidide' qu'il «*a agl dafls toutol Ics; ' 
" transactions cODcernimt leS" ditos action»-quo coninie courtier ct qu'il n'a'paf- ' 
•" " ticip^ ^n^cune liifon dans Ics moyons qui oi»t ff<5«pri8 pour fair«'c<Stcr lea , 
"<<' actions aw bourse j , *"•.,. •• . " '" 

" Attendu que les d^fendcurs - Mlirsiiall, Sillj, & Boyd-ont plald^'niaiit Jes . - 
"^^* faits, ^p^oiafement qu'ils aient vefidu ou fait Vendre JUJa 'bourse , les' dites 
" actions ou qu'ils aient aid^ en aucune maniSre aux transactions faites siir- les 
" dites actions k la bourse de Mpntr^:jJ ou ailleurs.' ' , ' ' • i '/ 

" Consid^rant quant aux d^fendeurs, Doucet,- l!tacs(>p« Marsball, Sills & 
" Boyd, q<^e le demandeur n' ftit aucune^preuve des'; alldgatipn^ de sa tl^- 
" claration ; et consid^rant en loi que |ie dcmandc.ur.ne ncut ntotr drci|t d'action * 
" que par sliite des faits de frayide qu'A reprdche'aui'd'its d^fendeift-A, ouque 
" s'il y avak 9u aucune cote fictive ; et qi^e Je fait quo Ja compagnie organis^o „ ' 
" par les dflehdcurs aurait ^t^ ill^galcment const'itu^e'nc donnerUit pas le droit 
" d'action au demandeur. ' • ',..'". l^ 

" Considdrant '^que les dits defctfdours Doucet^ Masson, Marsh/ll^ l§ill^ &^ 
" Bojfd ont ^talili les alitSgatiCnsvdc'Ieurs ddfcnse^ lea maintienZ et ddbodto) . 
" quant A eux Inaction 4^ demhflll'eur avec d<Spens distriiits aOx 'procureurs 
" rcfspcctifs des dits d^fendeurs ; ■ ' •■'^ • • ' 

" Et adjiigeant surl-a contestation^ des disrendeurs Dorion '& Baxt^i'; . ' - 
" Consid^rant qu'il est prouve que toutes lesvenjtcbfaitesp^rle ditd^fendeur 
" Baxter etaient fictive.*, et que la cote des dites' 'actions n'est Wont^e k soixante 
" ctdix pour cent que |)ar su3e de la dite vefitefictive ; ' i 

" Considdrant qi^e le dbipan^eur, a ^t<5trompi6 par suite do fte'tto^ cote fictive; 
" Considerant qU|'il est prouv^ quo la^propri^t^ du demandcur^^tait hypothe- 
-*Lqn^^ foiir VB moBlfS^nt d'cnviron liwit niilln pi'n'tfrps.; , , , =^ 



r'i 



* ^ * 



li^p 



vCOUll DP BANC DE-LA REINE, 1886. 



67 






/- 



■ '"^rifl"^'^'""" q»Cl«^ d''m»B*e»r , droit ^otro ibdeinisd de 1« dilKroDoo '^-^"'^W^ 
I . " rl^^ l^'O^J'-nt _do« ditc. hyp«,h^^«c« ot K^ mon$«t.t de la v;.leur rdoUe do sa 
I pr^pn^te-;^ ^t qu U nc peut pas r^clame^ fatit qu'il n'aura pas die troubW pnf /' 

^^^TTT^^'^'^'^''' ^' *^''^^''"°"^ ^"^r« '^P-V- -pportd par la vente.^ 
^iSv f ° "i°".**^M'« Chretien ,re?t obligd de pajer 4 son acquit a 

vl?r^""f ''t''°T"^' ''"^'■^' ^'' ^' ^niandeur pour lesautrescaJS 
^ menfonndes duB« la dd^laration A cent piastresj. condam^e les ddfenZurs 
Dorit.u,ct B.i?cr co^jointcment, ft Eolidairement 4 payer au demai Jur b 
sottme do douze cents 'piastren, cours actucl, avco int6r#t eur onz^ cents 
jmtt^,L compter du ving^ ef un iuillet mil huit cent quit^e-vingt./date d/ 
.la vept^ de. la d.tc propridt^ par le domandour au Jit Chretien, ^t(8ur cent 
piastres, a. |on.ptcr do ce jour, et les depens distraits i Messieurs Lrnard. 
^.iJeauchau,p,&, Barnard, airocat. substitud, du den^^ndeur ; la Vsour Sse^vant 
. M dcronndcur son rccour, contre los dits ddfondeurs Dorian & Baxterlorsqu'ii 
"sora-mqui^j^^^arksditscrdanciershy^othdcaires." ' ■ 

L'action dc1'intiu.d en CgurSup^rfcure dtaifen dommages contre h.ppelant 
et 8« autrcs ddfcndcur.. Le prd^ent/ftppclant et James' Baxter sbnt les seub 
deccs^efentequi aicnt ,5tt eondamnd., les dommages t't.nt fixe.4 «1200 
Ilsi)nt^appc.l(corj|»ute.mei>t Ou jugc^ment, mais il poursuiveflt mnintcnant Ifeu^ 

La question;^ decider, dit rintim.5, est de savoir si le fiiit d'avoir par de^ 
mai)oe,Krcs et un concert fraudulent doShd une valeur factice sur la bonrse aux" 
nction.. de cotte con^nguie rend I'appelant responsable en dom'magcs covers ecus ~~ 
qui ont pris ecs p^rfts ct doon^ de Bonnes valours en dchange, se^fiant sur la 
sinc^r.t^ atstransactions^ai, bourse et sur la valeur ^oftimerciale des action^.. 
Sur celte qucslion/il n'y a A^ ^u de controverse en Gour Infdrieute quant 
k I cx:.sfcnce en K,i de la responsabilitd, admettant rexistence de kJ|iudo en fait. 
:. The defendant B-..xt^r contends that the pt^chases and sales m>ekhy him 
were real, but^cn if 'thegg^e fictiti-w, and if the plaintiff Wshown that 
be had. been mlUcd by them OVhich he has failed.^ to do), as he has established 
DO connection bptween Baxter and ^self in the matter of these purchases and ' 
sales np liabilfty Qan' attach to B..xta,,^The follawiug authorvty is Cited i& I 
"fiustujn this .proposition: ' W^ ■.'.'. 

. It ft conclusively settled by the Hcfus6 of Lords in pfi^.-Gurney, L^R.,^ 
6 H, L., 377, tha|;.the liability for fraudtiU][i|. misreprdRtatiou'in an actidtt 
of tort can only be enforced in cases where the person who complains 'tljat he 
has been acting in^rcliancc upon tli« false representations, can estabttsh in the 
communication of tile, fnlsc representations some dixccj connection between him- 
self and the personi^ublishmg them. . 

•There is nothing to fhoW tjiat Baxter tiiade any falsi representations in 
regard, to the stoct or the Comphnjr,,and hjs transaction* in buying and selling 
d i d nnf iiffect , it ,.i inh>t. i Q;n p .. i..» Vu .> — ■ ■ ■— - ' ^- ■ — ^><M«a*w*-»u.>-.4 - ■ 







'4^^ 



'> 



\ 







C^UR DV BANC DE LA REINK, 1886. 

I 



'■ ' ^4"* J'**" P'oipecte of the Coniptnj; ^nd th« real Take of tl 
p.iWOTrlej. ^he.^aintirta-itoauitcr. ' '• 

. \ If ihe expectant . of this Company w«r# ?ii. 

,|;<V~'^>wojer*<*Jt on n%Dg a aearoBlng iDTcstijgation 
\/^ ha made mjn t^cMt'tet whatever, tut acdwted 
n'-^i value. -T^' : 1'. ■ ■ '"^ 
'^^' ' The|latntiffd^d|taTailbiff«eiirthe 



1 

^ 'I 



;i 



eon8(|[uenoe of pUintt|pj^eleastaii|| 





and should smtfotW^wn nSW^. »nd 'i|h*f«^ilpt Aould^not b^ar^f i 



'. •®"»*l'»ence ot pl»intl||i^^)(||ele88to«|a *'■'#''''• '■'''''■'">■& 

■ -. ^n»«PP<>'tsfthiUi)«ofl;theiffiing|^^ 

:- : l^i]^^'*^^ ^''^ mMu that &M&mi^i^!^^|||ftn 

i!w'Jiyyifiiyiy^^i. misr^pt^nted tl>e^^|ijn^!^>iiJLtiSP^# 

mfttfoipptnowledge^'wtth^ui^^ %tiut a:iul6e 

lA' respect of which th%Joyer was under no legal 

BjeHcr for the jrecito a^racy and conrectncss o| his 

ymcb theref^e it was thi s^'i own indiscretion to'rSy 

enc'e of^jiich reliance thoi»foi||^e can maintain no notion. 

'(ft Clark and FionellyH, 233, I^Jkyihe' House of Lords nt 

> ii'*' !WOt«t^««* |lriit the purchasers did not relyj on the^^V statements, Imt tested 



£>^ 










4heir niJBur^^ and after ha;ving knowledge or the ii(<^ of knowledge d.claredr 
'■j^8clv»latisfi«!d,*.-|' •/ '■' H^ ■•^■■^M'' • '•■ 

Hcl(i alsfli thatlf Vijurchasef choosing to judge fcpTumsclf does pot avail 
^ limtelf of i|i(f krio>rl«d^e or' means o^knowledge op<»i^^^|^^^^ 
{/ / Cannot begird ttfsaS^'he was deceived -by the ve^dt^l'B rcprcspntations ; the 
•' nile being ftarea/^Wpefir;"; "'' ■ * ' U 

Bat the C!Oj,urt wjU nbticecind' a coatl-a^t <«[ sale without the clearest pnwf of 
I • ' ,' ' ''•uSulent r|'ptesenM^oi*i, and that s they were made ppder such circuoistanccs 
J«if» - •'\' it"' 'that the 6ont;rudt wap based upon them^ , ' t ' 

; '- P«eSireyi8(62-1^4&.j^,C6urdeCa86utIon. • 'MPv^ v'^^/^^'"^ ■ ' 

|.Ugem\»t confirni($. 



,* " * . ', ,,. » ^, V if.wgemeBi connrnii 

•JB'l' " • *i' ^^^'■'""'' -'^^'^^''^ ^«ef ef foZconer, jiour Tajip }i|mt Baxter. 

C^''^*^ *' '•^- ^•.<^ -^c^i^ P<Jur riipp^lant Dorion., '? '' ; ^ M ' 

'"^»* ' f -Parnart? c<Amar(f, pour rintim^. • % t'-^i ... . 





/■ 



COUR DU BA^'C DE LA BEINB, 1869. 



» eOUR D^ BANC DB: LA RRI^E. 
(En Appiti,.) 

MO.VTRfiAL, 8 JDLV 1869. 



V 

69 



\ V 



, ,_. 

; i'MAr/rt : LJIon. Jugc DuvAL J.-cn-C, Caron, MoN*,::feT Badolet, JJ. 



■./ 



r 

'A, 



MATHILDA JA.NE/McD*»NALD et Tir. * 

Demajtieuu en Cour In/friturt), 

APPtlAMTS ; 



\VM. DODD 



ilntervekant tn Cour lufMture), 

' I. 

iNTIIli. 



JuiSi :-Qiril njr a pas d'accroiasement Jans la dooations enjlrerifa lorsque la prbprifetieat 
'' donnie ; et que menao dans les legs il y a acfroiisement qiCen autant que le 
, ' tMiatcur na p^i assign6 U cbaque Ifegataire sa paft dang la oho«e 16gu*e.* 

^ Par un ncte do donation du 23 avril 1846, pa»s<j devont Oaudhfet; noUiro, 
^ EJwurl McDonuld, d«3fendour en Cour lafgrieurej reconnait avoir *donnd 4 
Albert William McDonald, fig^ do deux a'ns et trois inoi!«, et i I'nppelonte, fia^o 
do cinq ans-ct quatre moi.*, ses neveu ct nUice, enfat|lt8 do George McDonald et 
d'Eleonorc Dunn, presents ct acoeptant pom eux, iJsomme de £1000, payable 
nuxdits deux enfants et.divis^oentr'eux par^-afes ^rt8.de'£500 chacun, aprda 
le d^c^s de leurs p<5ros ct mire, a f(uiM;'int<jret eer&it/Lyi annucllcmcnt, par paie- 
. nienfs de trois mois en trois mois k compter du brcmicr mai nlors proohain 

[184G.J • ^ . r 

G't acte de donation a M dnement cnregistr^ au bureau d'enregistroment du 
crthM de St. Joan, oil les parties avaient leurs domiijileH. \ * 

G.orge MoDonald est ensuito d^c^d6 le Icr mai ]l857, et El^onore Diinn, sa 
veuvt;, a ^poubd Joseph R. Dodd en sccondes Doccs.l 

Do ce niariage est n^e Ida E. Dodd, qui est minejure. ^ 

,,\'hart Wflliaii^cDonalJ, I'un des donataires enjpropri^t^ inentionn^s au dit 
acte de donation du 23 avril 1846, est d6c6M en minority le 12 jrtln'1861; lais-' 
?ant sa mere, El^onore'Duno, pour sa seule et Unique Ii^ritiire de la somme de 
■■^, £600 que lui avnit donnie ledlt Edward McDonald. - 

El^oaore Dunn est d^c^d^e le 3 Janvier 1865, sans avoir fait de testament et 
,lais«ant pour heritlire la dite Ida E- Dodd. 

'^''^''^-'^t^^ *''^jl^i^-^^^' a la dite Ida E, DoJd.'et Vacte'de 

PVi^*rJ/i'appelant&jJovo^||najeure, et ^tant aitorisVde son mari».a 
* #T.td une action contreTfe dotiateur. Edward McDonald pour rLlamer la somme 
.^iere de £10(» Hentionn^e au dit ax^-deVaflbn^f 23 afril 1846. 

. Pendant que oettbicfion ^tiiit pfendlfte, savwr, te^^#Jmbr6 1867, le dit " 

Joseph R. Doda, tant en sa quality de ^teur a la dite Ida B. Dodd, qu'en son 

/ proprc nom comme ayait 4t4 commun en biens f^ec la dite^.l<!ionore Dunn,^ 

« qui avait ^t^ mari^ san^i conventps m?trimft^ale^''transp^ta A 1'i.ftervenant 

tout ce qui lui ^ tait alq^s id et pourr a it .fe gtre' d(U I 'Si viir, ^ n-^orh, ^^ ^j t- 



acto de dotfttio 
sorar 




/•■ 






brogea dans tousles- 4ro^4Jet acWivj^jMur recouvrir la 



■# 



i3^ 









. ^ 



''...V> :. ■ 'i ■ i 



K^ 



h', ■%. 






. / 



70 



, CbUJR m fiANC DE LA RElNil.'lSfiD. 



Mftthildn Jadd 

McDonald 

et *tr. 

et 

Wm. Dmdd 



• ■^ ^ :^.. . 



/ 



\ 



T 



■ Pans 1^ oour» do I'inatonee pendonto oootro lui A la pount^to de t'/ppoluato; 
Ic ddfcnJeur, Edir»rd McDonald domanda a co que tu dit Joseph R.\podd m, 
mis en cauw ccjmmc 4tant inl^si^ dans l<$vt»Siewfl|jt du proeos, ot il'Stin/un, 
ordrq A cct effot. Sur ce, I'hiiiro^.yui rcpr^aentait le OH JowpTK. D^.i/ntcr- 
vmt dans la cause pour ^vltor les fr^s d'unfi iafso en oause ou d'uoe cKoWande 
. en declaration da jugcnWt oomniun. ] Apris aTo> allegu«5 Ics fait»ji4>ISS»l^ 
quo I'appelante n'avaft Bas lo droit do rVclamor du dofondeur hsmZo totalu do 
£1000 mcnti()nn<5o d^s I'acte do donation du 23 av^il 1846, att«indu ^iu'il n'i_ 
avait awsan drpit d^ccrobscmcnt en.«a ^ftrf^ur, le dit intlm^ ionohiair^ Otro 
recupariio iuteryhante, ii cc qup par lo'jugowout 4 intorvo/ir il fut dj5oli.rt< 
proprietaire et jfr^anoior de la wjnme do £500, p-irtio do oijllo do ilOOO ■ 
r«<oIam<5o par lyppolantc, et doa iirt.5iflts sur ieello 4 oomptet du 3 Janvier/ 18C5, 
ct CDfin4 CO a<ie I'aotion do rappoian^e fut d.Jbott>ao avdO/^dpons quaat 4 L dite' 
somme do £500 et inf^rfits coraino susdit, otlo dt^fendtur ooodau»a«J a Lyor a 
l'intira(S Wdito sommo do £500 et int^rfits, 1q tout aVco depons. \. 

L'apraHanto a conteatd octto intervention e^ alld^apt quo I'intorvonJit dog. 
nnit urt6 fausse intorprdtation ft I'aote do donatioi/; quo I'intoa^ion-du dUatcur 
^tait/quo la jommo totalo do £1000, 'dan«/o ci6 oi Tun des enl^mts 
'^co^go MoD(5lri|)d ctEldoooro.bunn, d^c^Oonut ..vanfr^ux, apparticulF^ au 
vivant dcs dita cnfants, et que ronfant pi ca^Sc^lHut no poiiVrait/u^ traiis 
icttro auc^ine partie dans sa succession, • , 'j^ / 

Lo d^fcnd^nr ft'a paa oonttttd rinterventi6ir"c|il i»e se plaint^s du jugc- 
ment. ^^ . r\. c « 

^ Lasoulc que^tiofl soulov/o par la .contestiition dJ I'appelahto Xiit-lono do 
snvoir s'li y avait accroi.ssemcnt en sa favour de la sommo do fSOO^oiWou .»"i)n 
frire, Albert William McDonald, ou si 4 sou dt<e6s sa n.6ro, EkSonorc'Duiin,en 
avntt li«<ritd. ^ ' ^. .* \ '' » 

La Cour Supdricuro StS^oant sV 'ftlontrda] aju-dMe 2^ fcdgffrroif lSG8] 
que la doiiatiori,.n'avait pas 6<6 faito i*(ius \i condition de survic et qu'U n'y 
nvait pas lieu au droit d'acoroissomcnt, el ellc a en cons«5fjtten<;o condariu.t' lo 
ddfendcur 4 payer 4 rappclanto la soninie dff £500 qu'il lui avait donr^de pur lo 
dit octc de donation, et 4,rintu»d une parcille>rame de £500 qu'il avnit doiineo 
au dit Albert William McDon'ald, le tout avcc int4.&fcA Compter du ddcc-sdc la 
dite Etdonoro Dunn. . , . \ ^4^^ 

Voici la clause de la domtfion'qiri a donnd liou i octto con\e8tati6^n : 
" Personally appeared Edward McDonald, etc., who acltWledgod to have 
gi»en, assigned, transferred and. made tiv^r, under the title o{ donation tntrevi/s ' 
jmre, simple et inivocahle, and by these presents 4otbgiv.e, aWgp, transfer and 
makeover from ^henceforth and for ever, ufider thklsaid Wo and being ftr 
paccntnl affection, with promise of w^ranty against all gifts, l^owor-j, mortga-es, 
substitutions, alien ;rtio»s and othet'- hindrances whatsoever t» ASWrt Winlim 
^Donald, aged two years and three n.onth.,^and to Mathilda Jane McDonald - 
flged^-e years, and four mnnths, his nephcvv ani-niece, minol children issue of ' 
the mileage of Mr.Georgo 3BDonald,'of the pa-rish of Liprai4'L >'M I'deleinc 
fatmor, an^^Irs. Eleanor Dunn, his lyjf^, thfljr fi i thnr nncj m^jtharM^ promint. 
and acceptrngN^jT their said two children un-lor, the U|lo aforesaid, ihe "sum of 



,,j,,j> 7>»-.*)(.^>., 



^'^'^.^.. ' 4 7' ■■ 



"^, 



k 



^'^•v;v.v...K,.^.KW..-.:M.M-M.'^-'-'-'-^''-^'"r-'C''-'^-'""-^....,.,, 



.ft 



.JDQUR DU BANC 1)E L4 RPINE, 18C9 



rr 



•on« thoiwnnd priunda corftent moR|;y of thin ProiriiMe of Oiaadt; which taiJ !«uin MftO.ilJa J«ii« 
will only bo pkid to th« «a'id two ^littor children and to b« eqaally difidod M«Don»ld 
•mong<«t them by ««iuar*.Buni of flf« hundred poundv said currency, to enoh, et ' 

after the dontise of their raid father ond niothof,^ whom the interest of the aMdi$^'^-^°^^' 
"one lftoi»«aodpoiJiBd8curron()y aforesaid, nliail bc^nid annunlly and by quarterly 
payments, of flft,(e^n .^nndn, said currency, each, to i^it:. every three months* 
faid interest to. bp aeopiiiited and reckoned froraj the trat duy of May next, 
and 80 to continu^\to ptiy the said in)oro»t evtsry Uirce moilths, until the prin- 
cipal sum of one tliVasand poupds bo paid, which said sun^ ofsimty pounds,- 
currency ^fbresaulTihfl-ttttefost of tho" "said prinoipal sum, tho said lildwari 
McDonald is williiig aVl wishes tlwt'the same bo paid in the manner afprcsaid^ . 
to the said Georgo M&Donald and to -the aaid Eleanor, Dunn,- his wife, his 
brother and sistcr-in-law^^ring their .natural life, tAxd until the death of tho 
^aftt, survivor of cither ofahem^^tbe principal sum of one thousand pounds, said 
cuwcnt money, will then bo pnidlo^ie said Albert" Wvilliam McDonald and, the ' 
said Mathilda June 'JfcDooahl, by equal Hfalf of five hundred pounds, said cur- 
reilesE, to each, providing rhoy arc then of age orin»}«j%, and should they both 
or cither of the two, bo then and at thil time yet minors, thcn^ tho principal 
Sum of one thousand poundVcuironoy afnrosaiJ, will remain into tho hands of^~ 
the said Edward Mcponald;JiU heirs and iiHsii^n-'^ untjUhe siid tWo ^"idrcn 
bocomo of age of majtfrify, dnd^tho interest^ tho said principal sum TRll bo 
paid fi>r tho c'ducation'and raaintcnunco-of tho said" miqor children uatil t 
will have attained to each the ago of majority.' | 

1 " But let it le well understood that jf any other child oi|cliiIdre(i should .-.,„.. 
jf the said marriage of the said Goorgo McDonald, and Elcihor Duifn, and should 
they survive their said father aiid inothor, then and in thiit case they, the said 
ihildrcD, will have a right to eooh Iheir cfiubl share of the said sum of one thon. 
,^^ (and pound:*, currency aforesaid, and tothe interest <A the said sum at the rate 
jf six jftr cent, per annum, and tqtc paid by equal quarterly payments of three 
nonthseach, until^ihey will have nttaiincd to eacli their iij;e of majority, which 
- Jihare will IJrs paid'to the cliild that will attain or have tttaincd to -his age of 
„ inajority,btit"oiily*8f*er Qiodferaise of both, his father and i pother, " '^ ^-^,^, ' 
■ II n'y jias 14 do substitution j George McDonald ctsa feumene 8on^r|K&j|t^ 
li^a de rendre ijcurs enfanfs ; lis fie spnt pas mdnie usufruitii rs, puisque .la somroo 
(O^riden'est pas misea leur disposition, snufi la ron^t^ci, la fin dcl'usufruit • 
its n'ont au^un droit au capital, pas m^nie d'en jouir ; ils ont iieulement droit d'cxl- 
j jeer du donateuf le paiemcnt dos int^iets leur vie durant. I<<8inlMt8 sculs leurs 
f f ont donnas et le capital h leurs deux enfant^ rappelantl et Albert William 
JIoDontdLlgi^Cos deyniers ncsont pas substitu«5s I'un il liiutre, I'aote ne ren- 
fBj-mb^^HBs expression qui comportc uno telle substitution, ir contient 
c eux aoftttwns distinctes, mais dmx donations aotuelles fet pr^nant cflFot do ' 
h date do I'acti, I'une du capital et Taulre des int<Jr6t8,ripulement le capital 
t'6tait payable qu'A la majority dos donatairos et apros la iiibrt do lour p6re et 
die Icurj n^ra, qui avaicnt dVoit aux int^rgts leur vie durant 



'IP 




.T 



• ■^ » 



■W-A 



'M 



\irgmev 
iiflRai 



^ "H^""'* pr<Sfend que son^Trere et ^p no acvenaieiit propri^taires *da 



cipital Jfff^ leur fige de ma^iit^, et quo|«ip fi^rc^iorten/&inorit^, u'y a jamais 



' / ■ . ■ ■ ■ 

-/ 







■*■* 



/. ■■;:X. 



1^ 

■II 



hi ^ 



II 



'X 



73 



■w 



COUR X>V BANC m LA llEINB. 1809 



./ 







n'ent ecrlniti 

W 110 JH't 

i'tt'm r>nuHn>tntrc* 



*'m«D .n:'ra"*"* "*'*^«" ^'"Jt* WnU Blnrs rdpond I'intlmd, dnn* ^n facfum, qui «Uli proprl*. 
•t »ir laire de cc ci.rj?.:i l i w ilii l «)irt« <k la do^ntion et pcudMit leur njlnotit4 ? Co 

^^ro ct Kur . tii'ferc, qui n'y avniont aucun droif, 

^^^^^__ doniteur, qui en iiv;iit fait don ct «'cn i««it irrtvo- 

uif*r VoilA ^onc uiio nommcqui ncrrtit rcnKie pffodant vlngt'aDt 

- wr '" '^ '" P»'<?'<!n»'«^n de riippclartte ^toit (^md^c. IV«i||our!«, oe" 

''IBig* "^ dcfoit pns D^coxsairemcot Otre pnyd Ala hmjorif^ dea d«tt« donatiiirea, 

« /!ipt ejicore que lout pi\ro et fe ur ni6rofu »,>ciit alors diJe<S !<<,<, autremont elk 

nllliit pij„bIo qu',\ Icur J«5e^j^gg|g^^|nt pfw pr(|ij)rl.Uuiro)» d«\/la pawa- 

'^U'.rt de iwt", pourquoi lo aeiWlffHW^ui pluft leoiT w:gorU<5 qu'uu d<5ci« 

ii^^de I<'Hr pv'Cft dclcur uii^rc? ^ ' -i,. , , 

^1 Co (pu uclii^ve d«r37uKintrcr combion eettc pr<5tentii,.u ost wro,rt<«, o'est lofnit 

lie le donutiiiryiipulc, quaViutt'iCr do U aonnue dotjrMJo sora ^liji pour I'^du- 

ct lu »..utifn"d«^ l'ttpjy„Bt« et dowMi frtTO jnsqu'4 Ijur Ago de mnjorif^, «i, 

le cila Wur et-t ntrivi, Mur ptVo «t loa^ oioro d«5j«Sdaiont avant ootte <Jpoquo. 

. ii.>ri seulcluent il leui a donntf 1« cipitul, wait il ieur on a enooro donti'^. 

tvUns, et it'poque do l^r A^'odo ni:ijorif»^ ot cello du d^ods do lour pdie ct 

Ik" knir miic u'oni <?t^ mcAtionndo:* quo oouirao ^tutit lea termcu auxquels le 



■■^' 




. du ipital dft»iendruit exigible. 



Si 00 n'est pus h i'intorpretittioreque 
dUUWtr-WTf- 




' • coinjiortc rsictf, lu don/atiort scr.ilt |»jvoDtio oaduque pnr lo d«<i-ii^ dUUWtr 

^ j'ViiH .>M)otii.id,.et dws C.J eu«^i nc^cr.»it pas ruppol.mto (||^d pr^Qteruit 
•• '^ iiinis^lo dftrititour, CO que personno no pr<5tcnd, ^T " 

• LVp|clmrttsct aoD iVvre sot^t done devcnus proprt«5fa!rca chacun do la spniiue 
de i:5a(^<^o luonicnt que I'acte do- donation a *!t4 compI6««< ot acoopW pour 
" tui,'Y»ar loiiPfi(Jro "ct K-ur more [I], et d^-j ce niotiicnt iU ont pa tranaincttro 
oliiicurra leu?| hi^rijiiers la somme de £500 ' qui Ieur avaitito r^fpectivcmcnt 
doniiec.'. ■ -'■.■' "'ife-''' ,. „ ' # 

; 1, appelant' no pout p#^!-<5%dre que touj|r.h' Bomnft donn^o H son ffftro lui 
appaiticit paraccrois*^^,ient, d w^d piirco q»'il n'y a jamais d'aoorois-soment* 
d«,!is k.s]lona«to eii't«||if. lorcj|i la.proprj^ est donn^e. [Rioard de« Don., 
part. 3, cli. 4, ^ 6,:Xo. 529.) Pothicr, Don. test., No. 346 ; ancic'n Douisnrt,' 
.vo, Accrf•is|s<;IJ^^llt Jvt ejj second liT-u, pnfco que n)«uio dwns k-s legs, il'n'y u 
d'aWroi^peuienrrjgll^itantMiue I? _^tuteu5^ n''aJ|fci asd^nd n ehjKjue IdsatiuVe " 

Donj^pt.3^o,^4^et No.^61, ^ I'uu- .' 

il/lL»Trait pas libu 



fa pnrt diuis.lu cRoij^k'j^u^c. [Poth 






H „P'*W''tniP«it 'o-cas iefiHp''(Ufetcur-a irssigii^ i cliatgio donataire leurs 

Rf|j«s|jli .«miinv| %«<!,.; Ipseiil'cuue fois,t;j;ccr6i*.seiiient n-a pa* lieu 
^4aii9 lctdon«ion5 cntievifs ex^iliidans les doTiaUons d'usttfruit. 

X'HppeJriiite (l^ulcv^„dans, sea griefH"appc1 l'obje<jtion quo lo tu^enr d'tda 
/^^^ o ,£, po^- uavait pas pu ti'finspoi tcr « TintiM la ioeaiivi qu'il i^clanicsanfy dtre 

■^^. •'' ■ '■'* —^ ■ •_, "' — -^ ■■ ^ v^ ' « ^ii ■ _. ■■ .c'f^y 

-Code Civil U. Cm Art. 303 et "89. i ^^ ■■■«;■- - 



Potlfler, /Jon. ^fitrevjfg, No. 58. 



' ■ - 1. ■..■ . 



iV. ■■.>>^:*Y 




;■■'%- 



COUR DV %kM DI U REINK, 1669. 



TS 



autoriaf LSippc'lanto aurait JQ faira ootte olJMli.m •Irnit n cwitciitalU do I'in- M»tlill4a Ju* 
tcr»ention. II eU ruuiutouunt irop tar<l. Au re*tf, oott« objcotion auruie fm *'^J*^,"''* 
ttfoir quol(|U« force dnii* la bouclio «lu .Mfon-lour, A, qui Ton ilaniniidiiit lo p»io- *'^ti'' 
nieotde la iionuno domino, ou enooro dtnn clip du Jutoiir de la inineur«», tnnii ^"^ "'^*'- 
roppelo^ite ii'u nuotino quuliid, ni nuciin IntdrAt li invoquer coito oMopjIon.' KHo 
n'a pua do qmiljttS car olio no ropi<5tonto pal la mincurff, ot olio n'o pai d'ini^i6t § 
piwco qu'oo DC lul doumiido rion, qu'il n'y a iiuouiio'eoiuluinniKlon ooiitre olio, e% .^ 
quo dana toua leu oua ellu no pcut n-oouvrir U aomiiie qui « dl4 adjugua & * 
rintiiif^, puicquVlIo no hii nppiirtit>nt pua ct quo o«tta Konuiio devniit alora 
dcmeurcr cntro Ics roiiina d« d^fcndour, Cottc objrction no pouf non plun h'iip. 
pliquer A la particle la cidunca qui uppartcnoit i^ Jowj/h R. Dudd pcrBoaiicllo-' 
mcnt, • ,' ' 

Udo autre obJoctUn quo I'nppolnnto a roulovdc dnna aoa grlcft d'uppel aculo 



tncnt, ct A)nt il n'y o aucunjLtraco duns la proc^durl^ o'ent qu'cllo auiiai ct In 
fiUo ct h^ritiire J'EWonofo Mnn, pt quojo jugomcnt aurait dtt lui udji^or lU 
in^inH une partio de la aooinio do £500 ct dca int^itta accordds & I'intimC ' 
L'ltppelaDto H'e>t pour la preiiikVo (bi«, dana oca Riiofi d'i.ppul, qualifltte 
' Nomine liei iti^re do sa uiiio. Kile n'a jamais, ni dana »a dddaration ni daitR sa 
contcj^tiition dc I'intervcntien do I'intinid, reclame A oo titre aucunc partie do la 
eomnio en contestation ; il n'est d-ne pa> dtonn.int quo lu Cur lufiSrieujo no lui 
ait paa ocoo»d<5 co qu'ollu n'a jaumis dcmando ; nmiri coiMno, «» so port:. at 
Wrliiero d^n mtjio, dlo uurnit iiiduljitabl-Mnont le droit do i A'liiiiM-r lo aiiart do 
lAditil fomn.e,do£503 6u£12d avccintdilt dopui« janvior 1805, n.«,no de 
la dite Ida K. Djdd, si cclloci I'aviiit rc9uo, lo di^ iuttn.ig a dijA si^nifl^ ii i'ap- 
pelunte qu'il so dd.Histait .du jiigcuicnt rendu en cottc cdu-e,'ju-qo'A concurronco 
rdekdite aomnio dc £125 ct int#rCts touuno ^uaJit, co dout HNoJ^mundd udte 
|»to r^pnnses aux griefs d'iippofci. -^ 
, l^p is the judgment of tlie Court bcl6# : 

_ The Cowt having board the' parties by their rof-poctivo Couftml, as welt upon 
the merits ofilio principal demand, as on tho Iiitorvoutioti njade and filed by tho 
"iiitemniiig party in this cause, examined the proceed in;:s, proof of record, an<^ 
havitf^ mifturely doliburateJ, consitrerin.j: that th<j plaintiff Mgiyida Jane Mc- 
. Donald hath no right to recover tho wholo sum of eight huudrl^toweiity-five 
pounds ourrenoy with intorcst as in and^by lior dx-i iration dl&JK but only 
that of three hundred niri soveuty-flve pounds, with iut^^Wieroon from, 
twentieth Xovember, one thousand eijaht hundred and sixty-five, inasmuch as in 
and by the donation of the twenty-thlrd of April, one thousand ei-iht hundred 
on»*«Wty.six, which snid Mathilda Jane JIcDonald grrunds.h'ir Hction upon, 
there |jath become duo to her, payable by defendant, a sutn of five huDdred 
pounds laid currency, with interest thereon f|omsaid twenty -third day of April, 
one thousand eight hundred i.nd fortj-.six, and no more ; ' 

Considering that io and by her said deolamtion tho said Mathilda .Jano 

^ McDonold acknowledges hj^vjng rweivcd frftm, defendant five hundred dollars, 

**V''° ,*''*'''''<'"' ^^ November" wie^thousund eight ItuBdred and sixty-fivc, which 

saidlsgiii.of five hund/ed ^ars eWd to one- huudiod uMd twenty-five pounds 

fliirryiny . ivppiibfl to thft, i-Htinftion it thu ium^fi^tyl^ayoj iii favor of aaid MatbH ^r^ 



^ 



M^^ 






# 



'• Vi 



Htl<r, 



/ 



71 



COITR mr BANC DK LA REI.VK. 18«9. 






tl 

W. Uodd. 



*"McKirf "" ^''^'''"'^'' '" "'• F»««iN or iU. .«.« of (Ivo buudr*! pound, wlj our 

7z: r : ""?, '"'"' "'"^ ••'''->'''^'' '-•"'^ «'--->. -«»• t,:: • 

"I .tjP'Ote, mij no woro ; 

em^dj,ri,.« .|.,a in n,.I bjr .he .aid «c,o ofd-matiou the ,u.« therein given to 
1 o -"' ^'"J" J- J""o MoI)o,..IJ. .„J Albert W.lii„„. MoDo„.ld, ,o 

e I d t'l : r""': ""•' """"^ "" " "'"" ^-' ^ '« «-•• «>f »•- « • 

OH' liuiidi-od pound* cftid currency ; 

Co«M.Jcriu« that by the death of «id Albert Willia.o McDonald lnhl«mi- 
nom; the .uu. of flve hundred p<.und.. .aid currenoy «> ^iven J. .„d . .1.^ 

yt^^rT"'^''''^^''''''''^ McDon«ld,hi,.i.t!r,but in hi- L 1. 
KljrDuun widow Of Geo.,o Jtfo Donald, fnther of the two minor children. 
I.«re bc.uK, with rei,,cet to the ^aid .u«. of flvo Imndro 1 pound, given to .,. J 

of the wid Mutiiildu J.iuc Meponuld, his iihter ■ 
CouMdering thut the in.ervUing party being the cemonnaire of Jo.eph R. 

rrb r„ 7 "'"'";''" "'"^ ••"-■ ^^'^ ^'■'"""'^^ ''"""• "• •" i^'- -» -■"• -; 

1 h^f If r """r'"""« '"'"^' •'""' " "«'" ^° «'"'- ""J '^■««v^'r «''^ 

Zo f. „ T m"'", ". t""" "'""•"""' P"""^' ""'-^ curtency, with interest 
th^von (Vom the third ol January, one thousand eight hundred and .ixty-avo. 
^ It II. hereby ordered and «.|ju«ed timt the defendant be and ho i. oonde.nned 
pny ,« the md Mutl.ilda June McDonuld tho .aid sun. of three hundred and 
meHtJ^.flvo ,K.(ind. currency, wi.h intercHt thereon fro.u tho twentieth of 
IVoVeniber one thousand eight hundred and Hxty-Bve. It is further ordered 
and a judged that for the «urplu» of the .aid </m«n.fo tho action of the .aid 
.Hnthildu Jane JIcDonnld bo disnii^aed with costii. / 

XV^-^ ' M ^t"*? ''"'■*''"■ '^"^""'"* ^*"' 'J«f«"J«"t'to pay a„d m.ti«fy to Uie said 
, '"' ,1 ' ' '»'<''''*^"'"S P""y. «» c' "'•"'.na.Ve ol' the eaid Joseph R. Dodd 
the stjiu of/five hundred pound, «aid currency, with interest thereon froni.tho 
said thud d.y of J..nu iry, one thousand ei{{ht huudrud and slxtj-flve ; and finally ' 
the fhmtit Matliiblo June McDonald, is condemned to pay to U>e inlcrrenini 
party all <he costs of her unfounded contestation of his intorTCntion, which is 
hereby d,smis8cd,-rf»<mc<.o« of which said eoits is awarded to Messieurs 
Dorion, Dorion & Gcoffriou, aitortioys for tho said interriining party : also la 
pay to the defendant tho cost., accrued on hU contestation of said phiutiff 
Mathilda Juno McDonald's action. 

_ Jugcmcnt onfirmd except^ quant aux fVids. 

lies Hon. juges Duval et B idj;ley, dissidents. ' 

Machay et Austin, avocats des oppiluntx. 
fiuriu», Dorion el Geofrlon, avovats do rintim<. . ' ' , ' 



I 



J 



•1 



* 



i_ 



*i. 



4? 



OOUR DU BANC Dl LA lUIINK. IBM. 



7S 



Tidicuti 



COUR DU BANC DR LA RHINE, 1863. ^1 

(JOIUIOTIOM CiVILI.) 1 ' 

MOMTRKAL, « JUIW |h«*. 

L'hoii. jugt tnehtf Duvai-, «t Im hon. Jugta Avtwitf, MiRi. 

tUTII, DriumonD, it MONDRLKT. 
JlAX.BAPTWTK DCPLEHSW ' " 

(Dif*H<kur tn Con? dt Pnmitn Itut^ntt,) 

•'It' ' w . *"■«•*"» 

' CHARLES DUf AL'LT 

^ ( IhmnndtUT tn Vour dt Pnmart'tmHane*,) 

IllTIHi. 

£tc»^<l*4 cbligatinH, et dfpouvftir$ dn mandatairt.—Lemahmimrt qui 
*ii/it tn ion proprt mm /nitil rrjailUr iur ian mandtnt 
, fout*fkte.T<'fpt(oni qu$ j)eitvent lui opimur etiix avee qUi il fidf. 
afmntPuHicipatioH A la /tamlt. **; 

Lo 23 ootobrt im2, rinding inteau contra I'uppclont uno ootioa datiii 
Inquelle «prt\« avoir rolafAquo, pnr acts do vonto pm6 H St. Ourn, dpvant Mtre 
limn ct confriro, notaire«, lo 24 Mpiombro 18G2, Joan Bnptwto Liiinotho lui 
iiiirait venda, moyennant deux cent cinqunnt« pla«tro% un fourncau do briqiio 
coDtcnaiit environ doux cent niillu briqiics ; quo pnrtio do cctte briqijio avalt 6t4 
»ian»porti'e i MoDtr<«al par doux bateiiers du nom de Allard ct Liinignan ; H " 
nllt^fcunit que le 13 octobre 1862, Jowph Peloquin, ogimnt comme ■ofnproourour 
»|H:»oial, avnit vcndu et livr^ & I'appol.int, dons |e port de Montrdnl, 68,000 dos 
<litc« briquoj, qui HO rrouvnicnt H bord du bateau Aim/wW, oppartcnnnt & J.-Bte. 
Allard, A raUon do du-nouf ohelins lo millc, ct quo 1« 18 du niOmo moi«, lo dit 
Joieph Peloquin, nglssant encore oommo 3on procurc^ift- «p<Scial, avail vcndu et 
livr<5 iV I'uppelant.'dani lo Port do Montr<Sul, au ilienjc prix, la quantity do 11,600 -■ 
«les ditc« briqucs qui so trouvaient d bord du bateau Chtrrtuil appartCDant H , 
Thomas Lusignan, ce qui formait pour lo tout uno sommo de £75 l.U, cours ' 
netuol, quo lui dovait I'appolant, et. il canoluait odntre lui vi paiement de la 
dito sonime do £75 13s., avco d^pen*. -i 

L'appelant plaida A cctte action pnr deux exceptions p^remptoires en droit et 
«t une ddfouse au fond» en fait. 

Par «i premiere exception, l'appelant, qui est orduncicrde Joseph P61equln, le, 
prdtendu prooureur spdcial doj^^^, et de J.-Bte. Lamothe, BOD-assochJ, pour 
uae foinmo do «319.14, 8o6t^^ la brique dont Tintimd r<Sola.noleprix, lui 
a M vendue par Joseph Vif^yixi^n son propre nom et pour son proprts compte, , 
ct Don comme proeureur de I'inWfn^^que cette brique appartcnait ap dit Joseph 
Peloquin et k J.-Bte . Lamothe, son associ^, et(^quoiintim<5 n'en a jamais ^t^ 
proprlutairo de bonne foi. 

Que I'Hote de vente du 24 septombre 1862, invoqud par I'intiin^ oomme soa 
titre H h propriit<J de la brique en question, est un actci nul et de nul effet, parce 
qu'il est shnnl^ et frauduleux ; que I'intim^, on dcvenant partie au dit acte, n'a 
lait qufttiltfir son nom - - > - _ ,. 



.. \ »■ 



''•'■':' "^1 



,.f, 



Pf ;il 



.."i1 



, • 



j^ 



qu^ ^Ijn? Ijitmotlia flt P^lo^hin qui, au ffioyca dg cot tg^ 



-i ^iag. • 




1 



76 



\ 



COUR DJJ„'BAx\C DIS LA REINE, 1865.' 

_ ■" - 4. 



lift 



«. Pufault. eloquin, la conspiration porttfft au djt acte, quMI p'a'|awai8 eu tradition doll 
_ ditc bnque, et en un mot n'a ficn fait pour dpn«»«r suite au dit acte 

Que de piu8 J.-Bto. Wttthe ^y^nt nU tc«p« de cette veate Josepk PtMoquin. 
> . P«"rassoo,d „epouvait..pa3ot*Wltpas'droitdevcddre *n son nom pWv^ ,V . 

. J .nt.n><5 un fo«rneatt.a<» briq..le fabriq«,S, par «t pour U Soci^t^ Lamotbtlet '- 
X etoquin. ■ * . - ' , 

^Et le ,dU appelant ponclut p^r «t dite premidra cwopt{*n & cd qtio I'acta.do 
- ro° e J« 21 acptembre 1862, soit d^olar^ nul «t de ouj effet.^ i^ ^ ^, t^Vion 
, ^ . de i intim^ qiii e.t b»8dc ?ur cct note soit- reDvoyde av<!0 d^pen, ' Vw T 
,. C I>«n8 sa scoondd exception, ]'appol,nn <.pr*3 atoir r^Jpdt^ quq" la briquc en" ' 

___-,, 6tant propric'taire ct uoa comtuo procurcur de riiitinid dit • - 

" .„^.*'<-°'/i'T" ?*. "" fabricanlde briquc, quj U ^Ln connu coa,tuo td ' , 
*n la C..^ deUo.irM-oi. il e,t dan,' Thubitudle <t veudre de l^jbrrdub con- -• 
fi^otronn^e pat - u. et pa> B.n amei^ Lim.tho, que. cette briquo c.ld'une i 
g:rqw=eur pluB qu'onlinaire ct facile A rJjcpnnaitrtj^ , ■'• 

•.• ,„^ri'''*''^° °°"' ^"*^'? '^'*'' P^NViaa readaea I'appela.t e« loi di.ant.., 
quflleiiu appartoniit.- . -■, ,**,,-*, ' / 

<?«e r^ oquin en <Stiu lo prOpri<<rairo. et qu'il voulait Stre pa^ par lui 4 a,cim- 
^ - .ottebr,qued'unc.o,«n,aJoe319,U, n.ontaatd-une ob JtiL Jotarfi.l d"^-- ■ 
1' ---JIt 'T'"' Sf ''^''°T'»^"^«'^°«''ntie.wre* clause desolidarii<Jj,arW:* 
■. A l-nlTpIn;: '"^'" " ^"•^' '' Jo^lI^^Ucet tra„*p.?t.. p.r.^ der.iS.r 

Uvra 




soHdaireo. ^f 

. .rn '• I '^T'r* "''* ^\^ "u ^"'^^'" '^^'^ b.teIiers'ccrt.vi.disom.„os. rka-- " 
s^tn ce qifil de«..it. pour hi >-iquc,i $265.66. . .- - ' *, 

. iiu'cffvortu d„ Wa.p>rt^{^lelrsia«ia*A^io^8d;io3luKh9pah'nten devem,'"'*' 

• ^son to«rer au^«rduditP.:ioquinpoarl«^iW.ri3d,8,^19:i4%tquah • 




r^ fi.it que Peloquin, n^l^VdVle-ZeZ'^^ 
J»^' *Vendu la bnq^ en sort proprc no^ a I'appela^t, qMiXnordJiasauia^ ' 
b6ut sa^qu]lne de «i.plo ..ndatair, est encore f^^ viZ;p^^^,^.\\ 

11 



CCS eircOnslances,ri!,^t|jHg ne.^^eut faji^e voloir diatit; 
^'tppelait qVg cal.Ies'da son uiuaaataite Peloquift.it 




iolath'atijiiDa * epntre 
C4t liteqi foado^» 



,.«.:; ,^^vi 






m 






/•i!^ t 



■■.»,>■ 






I '.•I,?'- 



J^ 



^SebtJiE:im ^342fe,aSii^"5SiNE, ^i§65. 



T7 



i otfrir; ^t flffro i l'eiJ<^i*tr<r do la 'dmnnae-aae riqttmVllii coinpenaatioD^tiu:il est i-BteV !)«-, 
tn <lrf.it i'invo<|Uttjj!i^Btt& 1^^^ #t r4irclrfhV<S9aelut an renvoi de r.nction' / ^ft?'* - 

iilferiiitimi(St»*ec'xJ<^fiena, '.I-,;;,:. V-C-/',;- ",,■■;,-■.• ■„.,,;,. { „„:,'„. . J ••- ''.■■ . ^•C.^buftiult. 



J.\ 



Mt qttltl n'ii-.}.iiuai8 contract^ uacuBe'dl'W en'v^rs- Tintim^, .quiil ne le xjonnuit y .. 
KP»;ifl<|ui)j n% pas agi, lora ibla vetite. dxi la bptftw, incntionu'^e en la " ' 



M 



■•» 



1- 



^ik'd rr»tion, comme procureur 8p2ci»f du"4J,^iTi^^ 

- Llptiui^ a r<Jppndu speoiafanent queTajipclant avnit^d iuforiD<f ftVant'la' 
T 'igiiiSefrtioti-du trapspdrt qu« I'intlmd <J|9itpi;opi'iet!ure„dvi.;ii hik^ en -qiicstiori 
; J otquole transjifortjflait JVaudttleu^^Stnm!<l, •'^ ■■Kt. *^ 

The CouTtj. baring honrd the paVties bjt.'tScir'coUtikd^f^^ * 

; ennse, iKid^^o upon tlw Wotioa of the said plj»l Dtiff," that the objc^tiqas fcscsrverf | 
yl tho'tlnqaete be niaintaJned', having 5«*mined4He4>roe«edi<ig8 <)f<jaebord and ■ 
; Jcljbcratej, doth rt^ccftbe suid motioij; andfeonsideriflg ttfat th\ 34 
' liath ftilly prol'ed'.thaf'ho wan the prt)prietor,ajl| in pcsac-wfon of tl^ jirict sold. * ' * 
,flnddelivertd'.i9 this cause by -imd through' tlwa^^^ ' • 

, qui^i ;"nn5 further eonaidering that^tjife aatd plaiatiff;LthJfally°ph>v6a t^at'fet! ■ • 
the tiHVO orthe4eliyct7onhe8aidbrl<;k to the iafd' Joan Baptist jSuples^is^^^ ^ ' 

^4e§.«n Jant, ho,^tiie aefondant, wag duly notified.'bjr the said Jospph P41oqu/ili, the ; . ' 
ager!t«fth0saidplnintifff)rtlip sale 6F die jijidbiift^ 
' '^asthe profterty of thesaid pLijintlat; add that be,wfa*actinjS(Tl(j|-^lHsa^eut}-.^ 

4nd,Tt»rther, coa!«d^riijjJliut tli| to^prov^e thai the^brick • .' * ' 

^in qWion ^.W 'the ,|^rj*perty oft'tha. sai,d Josp|k Mo iho property of:. - 

|^'^f"«^''e.& ?olQquiir, as statqd in his, exception*; 'and, fuuther; 'cohsidcnn" that ^ ^'-^ 
■ t/e»pluintiff had rcceivj^ d^iVeryy^he'laid brick from the siid, Jean B,aptfet9 ' 

-Xaiiiothe, who wns in p/ssesfiiep thereof 'as hii"6vvn,lou^^ 



VfennrtiierVhip- whicli ha'd. previously e»i!jt4>d! betw^^o the' said 'LjpifOtbe >nd: tljo 
'fRid PiHoquin, a^d tha't thessfd Rjloqujin wais not the prepritifolr of tlie^ai'd bri6lc, 
:nvl c/.iisi,doriii!; that the -said defendant acquirVfthe cliim of 'Joel ,Lediip,'after ' 
delivery of the said"bf jck sold to hira^as the brick of the praintiil^ aijd thaf ty ,liiw 
lie-coulif not compgnsat^ the'saia clam:9£||& 8;iid Joe! Lcduo >3 U6 has tfox|t 8|t '•' 
ilp.in. bis said Pl6a";— the Court dotlrQ^rute the'ifaid exccptiori'of the sa|V 
defend!^, aq.d doth bondeain thQeaid d€fendapt to p-iy to t!ie said plaintiff the 
suijj ,of two hundred (inivsetcatyrsir d'ullars'iarid 'sixty Cents curren.t«on>y.,ft^ 
V-tfijs I'roviflce of Canad^iiulanee^ffltoainin^ due upon the price,and"talu^ af 4 
? lu'^o quantliy of brick sold" att'd-^deiiverad By t!ie said- plaintiff atfting'b-y b'iS' 
„ 'i^i,%<'aiilJosep!K'B^qiiiny."ti0th>"8aid di5l|n(lant'on the <Jhi^ecnth*'^d 
<'iuTT*een3i*d;iys of thc' month of Oot(»l>ar, (>f the year eighteen hundred i\n'd' sj^ty- 
tm, with InttJrost upon the said sum , of two'liihdred an'd seventy-six dplWand 
s-Uty ceiits from the tweaty-tbir3 dny of October; ejglite^ hundred and sixty- r 
t'^o, date of the -service of jM-ocess in'-thij iause/ until jjctu^l payment anff costs 
Vf suit, distrait? ' in -f Ivor of D. Girvi^ard, jkq.i«e, the filivraey 'of the eaid 

ifWff. -/■- - , ;. ..;. '\ \' I,-":'-- ^ .; .. •-' -;"; 




'^,- 



'm 






^.r 



>*yf 



V^'P^Mj* •*-**« ^sVoic^apt J jjfui' % Bd'jnljeiaoti f 



■^ J"'- 



int|'.rp 



|]Ji ^'^ ^^^^ 'Je Pr«uiire Instuncie JIF |'.rpprclant dans sonfa^JtBiu. ne-paraij aVoit* 






X 






1 



■m. 



.»•' 



N"' 






16 






*•/. 






i^QUI^DU BANC JXE BA REINE, 1865. 



v> 



V'-fr- 



'%P"- ^ror.'!jr"-"T'*^'' '" P™""*^™ ""'"P"^'" ^' l^P"!'"^*. "OP plus out delu 
C. buftmt. «<^Pendanf, c gst 14 un dcs polD.s esacndels de la defense 'de. I'appclant' / 

mcut e veo :;•■" '^^'"'"S""-- '^^ I'avoout Germain, qui, jure positivc- 

Icloqu„,5ta.en easoce^queJa brique k%r appartenait, qu'ils .^taient ea 
d^confiture n^to.re, que cetto yento n'a 6,6 faite^ [ rintirn^ 'quo ^our e^Cr 

l^loquin, el nqt) pour Im vcuilre rt^ellemept la brique 

^,Eo ^ppdsant n.a.no quirintimdmt le propri^tairedeia brique in qucJlion 

•ir J<^« •^'^cepuons qui auraicut pu-^otre iuvoqfidcs contre lui par 

lacleteur,etparec»s.'qucutaiaeoi.,pensation.^fferte,par I'appelunte. • ^ 
II est ho,% dfe doute qUe-Peloquin, hvs de la vnte de Wque w'^'ft finite ^ff 

ou;^ "huiiS r*^ ^"^'?*'"*- ^^'""^"^^ ^'^ ^^^ ^'^ procuration ^deiale- 

que.l.„t«,e prc^tenK avoir donuee aPC-loquin? personne ne I'a prouv,5e p.s 

ii»e.„e P^loqun fe reticences sur ee point so.t ]i,„es de re„,ar<^ ' ' ' 

J^ gAen.l,on ne doit ,_pas,croire aux alfeg.tiJns^et aux.indl 

etabhr qu une personne a c^t^ char^ee d'une affaire, etc. Purdessus 

.Commercial, Tome 2, IXo. 557^"' . 

.W^ present, la question de savoir si un mand.taire qui a^it eu-sjn propre ' 

uom iu.t reja,ll.r ,ur son mandant toutes les exceptions qie pe;v6nt lui oppCer 

ecu. avcc qu. .1 ,nt nffairo. Tous le. auteu,s s'Lordent s,!^ ee poiJ. ^' " 

Jtu.«.sell-.PacWs&Bro^er^, page' 100. ' , \ ' -. • ' 

/. ll^!? ff ^""■■" ''!'' r^' -'' '" ""'Ji^^lo^^J principal the latter ^ Umi 
^ by a set-off against the former." v V."^f"** 

" bro£/!ll' u^V^^'f '»'. pPP«'"-^'"^* ^he owner of g^ods ha. allowed the'; 

'< Itr ,r ""1^' ^""^'""^'^'^ -^^ P"^™^"* '' '•'« broker in any way 
vvh.ch wojild have been sufficient had I.e been the real owner." • , ^ 

.Page 107': 'f Distinction entre F^cteur ct Broker." . " 

'"Sh"^^^' ^'^•jowever.the princip.1 enables ^he broker to mislead the " 
purchaser as by de ive^g to him the possession of the indicja-of brpperty of 
.",thegoodstote^Glditwi)ibe9theiwiV" ■ \ /> vp r y^oi 

■^J'S"! S-"'^"^^ ^^""^'''' ^^' ^^-' ^-2' 524, 523, 526, 527,'523. 529v 
, ^ 532 533 et 530, ou .1 est ^,abii que le m^'tidataire qui vend e„ so/ip..,r; nora . 

r, s^hge^personnellemcyit ot,expo«e;ie>mnndant a ^bir la compel;^ qui' 
v^ pourraa etre plaid(5e eontre le mandataire par lacheteur '• " ^ ^'^ 

'"' .n. TT '"T""' T ^'^'^'"'^ co„.p!«tement failli de' prouvep la' fraude ' 
CDtre le demandcuret, lenomnirf'T; '---" ' y. . ~ ^ '^ . 



lice? pour 
Purdessus. Droit 



.1.-4 



,^s 




■ ' .?' 



■ /m 



C0URJ)U BANC DE LA EEINE. 180. 



19 



lo.NPuroo quo riasolvubilit^ do Latiothe et P.JlonnSn ■ ^. '• 

Xom ^orT^' ^ ' frf^^^^'-rt,- Vo. Frauds, § 12 et 15; 6 r.uW.er, ■" 
fO.dd^—Sbb; 2 Suvar If, Parire, 39, p. 300) • ' 

3a Puree qu'il n'est pu. prouy^ que cette 'vopto git pu causer du tort a ° 

p u» quo suffi.aalcs pour assurer le „,oatunt do la dat te. aiuHi q«e.l'a d wT 
^^moin , P^loquin, ( Voir N. Beni^art Vo. Aaude V 1 Xo 10 pT' ■ 



lA.pp.I,ut «•« i^mmieu, ^tubli i; alldi£;4';o;;teuucsdJn8 8a'Becoaae :'v -^ V -^«^: 

luo P^kquin n'avait pa3 la -posscsstph -'^•'' 'Avi^^^ 



«cept>o,.. A« contraire,il est prouv^ quo P-^laqmn n'avait pas la T,os8c^^ph - • 
d.]a br.quoautenvp,de la v.nto faito i I'appeJt, le, bateaux pI^ZhI - 
aecnuU ujanUr6lon4. et afff^t^s par lo do-uM^ur lui-.u6,a . L'ilt"rclt ' 

Ea supposau^,„8.ueq.eleno„,.^ p„ ,^ ^^^,^. eu'^h/posse^SnoT 
ma^ohaad..sos vonJuos et eat ^t<? vrai ccn.uissioan-ire ou faotenr ri£ sou 
>..ont quo a coa,po,satioa n'a pu avoir eu lieu, attealu qu. le T™ df 1 „tiL ' 
, on pr.„P.pal, a |, d<Jvoil. i l-appciant avaut 1, fi/^e I n^^^ do 1 b^ "^' 

^^^|3t^Ubl, d'uae-m:m^^«,. indubitable W^r^m tmi^^^6loqZ ei^ird E^ 
^q^db.an^^o.^fcnde,r uV^rp&I^tienS 
d ^andaur ^tu. propri^taire do la brique, ft dit difendour, chl^oyanTfcs 

^^Zr"'''''°" •*'"•' ^^-P--'--''»*S-"^««^oirl.'posseH,i^nr.d^ 
. ctpubhqu^ en apprenant surtout du batelier Allard q^fele det,anaeur lui av«it 

^^nS ^^" l"i Wrtenait, en re^ar^^t el le^Z.deur aceo^;^ 
„ga^ partout du nouime Peloquin, avec raisol^ns doute, le d^feadeur dis-ife 

aura^ da^ .. . du euractere de,la pei^nnl^vee Sui il a^ 

qm.lava.tacho,^rabnq«e; c'^aif ea,«n mot son devoir- de s'inforper et d^. 

sonautonte et de «Ss pouvoirs^^K^^/^e^^,^,^ 87,-105.)^ 
VoioUejugeuien^dfflaCourd'lp^I. . ■ -r ^ " . nV , 

''Considdraftt:que lo prix de la dJte'vorit6 fut pay^ et compehs'e p,r une 
is forte spintno: savoir oal n ^fi tpn.-a ««„»'„:„... _...i.i:.. ■ -, '^ >'• 



A^;^ 






plus for e ,p.na.o,- savoir collo do trois conrvingt^ouf piastres qiSorzo centins,' - - - 
a«^d.t appelaat par los dits Pe'faquitt et L «„*tl^ .ur «n tran.part k lui " • • 
le lo pctobre 1862, pur Jo^ X;du5 ordancier d«.. Hit, P^-«„„:„' -/r ..„ J.'. ' . 



•\ 



jlue att 



W 



e :f 1 1 - /u To.V , "WH<»ia en u «n»tiu) aur un transpart a lui 

fa.t le lo octobro 1862, pur Jp^ X.duc or^ancier dos.dits P^bquin' et K^mothe 
ea vmu d'un, obligation d« 9 janvie^r 1862 au montant en d.rnier lu mcn^ 
Tn I'Z "*"P°" ^"' •^^'"''"' '^Snifi^ aux dits Peloquin et Lau^tW. ' . 
q,./ \'«' P"'^ r ^^'*^°'' '^«<'- d=»"« le j^eiienti^pdu paMa QoHr 

StTn? fr^ ° '" """ ''''' '' ra4.e.r ; cett/^ftur c'a^se, annul 
I etipet.u neunt ledit jugement. ^ a r * 



V-! 



, "1. 





" 11 


■' . ' 


. ' • « ■ , « « 


■ . '^ - 




- * r ' 






*5 » ■, 


*^ '-v ";; 












1' " n 





#'i( 



"fe:'?;"^. 



m 






JSOUH.hu BuVNC Dfl LA RKINE, 1865 



'"r^ 



^ J.-Bt«. Da* *( Et prooodant A rendrele j,ng«inent que la Gour Saperidure ettt dft rendrc, * 
•JBauitieit lc9 exeeptious plaidC'usjpar". I'appolaiu et dJb^UtJ I'aotion deTintiai^ 



et 



C. DufauU; tveq d^pqns tairt en^cctw caur qu'cti C)ur de P»;eiuiAre In$tanje/' (L'.hon. 

^j ^. Jfcan Pc?, JoH. JOuval, ju-je en'oTioJ", «t I'Lon. il. j'ifc{at3l)rgiiti», ((^'ijenittVnfifca^ 

.%■<'• 
'^ V Jetti et Itesftgr, j>our l':ippehnt. 

■ '. V, Giromr^, pour i'intittitf. 

i _^ , 



'Ik 



J u^cment . roil verse. 



!•■ 



./ 



*/ 



.). ^>i- 






'i\ 



•■fA 






: , «COUKT OP UKVIEW, 1881^^^ ' / 

. MONTREAL, 21«t DEUKMRKR, l»W* ■ " 
J|jhe'-cnt ; Jaiitfces Johnbow, DdnERTT, Git^ 



!■'.• 






<4? 



*-•> 



-a.,- 



Bcnaouuns 

VB. > 

ffARBON. 



#^:' 



1 Hemt;— Iq^^ Wii quo ivimt'if-Y^ iUe dqfeiiilaut will be held a ufiirper^uiilesr h«alipV3 

■' < J ' coi»i|.lete ttt-fe " . ^^ • ' - 4—^, »;. 

^« ^20. The dt|rfiiJnnt jhoiiM in b,i« plen ^et .up iti dr.ituil the whole gronnd of liis' 

f ■ "'iilp. but wIiewhc'jIki^a.tatfoso.aDd the plairuitr till? not dmurwa, 

,' * * tlieOourt may looK atthe ptftidliCrs declhriKioii to diScorer the defen- 

*•* ■ . (Want's title. "* . . . 

"' * , •3o.'\Vhere*a statute refluiressomeihmg tdj*.lie done, witKOut clearlj iaUicating tW~^ 

' .' Tn»ftn9, the; best available jncans vriU bo held leRdl. ' - 

, This whs in review t'rjoin a judgiu<»nt of the Superior O'Wit, distriot of 1? ^rc-' 

bonne, - - .• .*■'■: '^'^ ^^ 

Jtfnxso.v, J. — This is a procueding in iVtidituEe of quo war^knto. /vt the 

outsot two "(juos'liDns pft5so«tod ilieinsci7<?8 wfiich were iiDt'iiiluded- t04»t iht^tr 

— 1. Whpthi'f fho ca.se i.< s'Kj^'eptiMo nf rev^o*. ; nii^ y2% \vlu't!n.'r tfw rmiedy 

taken- in the Court bolowwas the proper oivo in v'uv.v oV fTie ^'90 of i^^isot ^r, 

. Fourriier (i'Q.L.R., 33 1), Chief Justice Jlsreditk and Stuart awd Ca?i:iiilt, JJ.,, ' 
held in that case that then^ w';iB"'nofeview-r-iu tlie tisen shite of 'the l.iw ; but 
that liOB bee^ reluedleJ;!)^^^^ stJtu'e of l:ist«se3-;,ion, w-Jjich es]5re!jj3ly iiiyes a 
revievf in auch ca8«.«. Shflpl a^s tn fije c-.i8ft itsjlf. it.i(fld>that ijjidcr the Muuicl- 
pid Codq tlie reuiedy Wfl[.s tiot hy ]>^xiwn llhdle' \n ulie nitiireol\'y'(/) wafranfn 

* but ttiat the manner af ^riceedini; wns prescribed by thj; >f tmiciprtl-C'od^Jt.self : 
nnd the .petition, which wa*. pne of tli" same ^ti'ituis; as tfiig; w;i.s ia. that c;ise 

. dismissed gn that grounu ^^ that we h;ivo t)jij|L|f>ijw whtfVhcr Fis^t vjr. 
Fourwier U authority -ta. rrtt- m this ci^.". Toe |^wfedi^J|^ autVirizjd by tUi* 

„ Municipal Code hn'g to be t »kt>'ryrit!i'iu' fit'toeu da^ afcer the election. The' 4*6 

Vic.^ c.\2t^, fct^^c. 98 is identfcii in thit^c-.pect with the iSfcici-pal Ci)ile; except 

.tjjy it ^iv<s"jurisdiition^t(»Tlvc S'lporior Court ^insteud of t^ theffeircuit Ci^ri 

, Id the pr«!.eiit «a«e tlie fifteen d-tyshnd e-^jpiretl ; ai*-] the Idjr, however a (imiofl 
i'^tered— ^whether under aii|iijf^>iujatiofl Iht a quo ^e'urr'vif^oPViudeT tl»€.«prg- 

' vi''ion'! of our Statuti^ and our C^d", SHrtstitiitiiig the petition libelee , is still a' 

I prerogative leiacdy to be excrcigcd for the public security and benefit, and wae 

hot, nnd jicrliap could"' mt, ba offoatuayy rcgeuled'by tlie ^lunidpiilCode |.at a-!1 

- _cveots, in cafiotrwlicre tlie i?fif.oi^» diiys hide^ptred, without^ nyoki 11^ tfte ^tuni- 

unpiil v'u ' it. Wl uie ttir<^mHl ihaUf ' Willi i\jjp {g ' y3ijja"apj)l!ua1i|kyi i ji.« wiiii wi^fsjoi 

tjie fsaijue ijatuie th-'/t hrivc p!-etipuMy conje bef(ire'ur4l^'F^h-C(|v*|#^ Our 

5 ^ r- '■■ a.' ■ ■■;- ir , . 



; r^y-: 



'»- '*■■■ 



..v^' 



COUJlTj; OF REVIEW, 1885, 



.81 



1.W dUpenje, ^ft'. tje old writ, r»nd «,bstit...fes the petition afl^jii summons to ^.^b 
The petitr»« being gmntol to the extent of autfioViziis the writ of." '? 



answer. 



- -. — "v y »ovuuii<.i.|<r lilt: wrii 01 

. summon., the procoed.ng,, ife aft-rwrirdn g.iverned by the pttnoiWcs applioablo 

^ tyquorcavrraao. The petitioner <«,neluded that a writ of jaa.4rra»<o8houlJ 

usuo «..toad of a 8udh«on». I don't think- that is important. It all events no 

,- W?,t6f y„a,.«rra«n> was issued, but a summons, as requiredtb/ law, issued 

instead : and the defendant appeared and answered^ and evince was taken 

. ; ind thf ca.e. WJ.S heard and determined in the defendant's favo|, and that iudu- 

^inent.sBovr inscribed for review bj the petitioner. Thegenm^pri„ciplei„"thei 

,v:case.s .. tlmt^ the defendant- is to be held a usurncr unless bJ hasa gowl and 

^ ;r rn"1^ " ^""^^ *'"" ^''""' '" c^ntemilntion of^^he s.me as no 
.,, title nt ml i^n this see authorities^ - Cole on s"9^^nto- ch. iii. It 
r,s:^lcar, 1,1.0, that the election of n:^r, aldermr^,/r cotinJllors of mudicipal 
c.rpor,>t.of« nmn- be held at the tin.e and in the^ant.er Ld subj^t to Sle 
. , quahficatK,ns regarding both them and the voter. Xr,uii:^d ^liw, a^I^l.atanV 
material dev.ation from the Statutes governing iich h.atlrs willVender the 
ctection invalid. (See the authorities cited furtlL on in L sam; chapter of 
C«le.) The «cond «ctiop o,f>Qur Statute is ahi express jfpon this head. ■ It 
fays: In case the person so complained of, deLdan{ infsuch cause, appe.nrs 
, on the day fi,e4 brthe,order<pf the judge, h^ shJl^ plead Jcciallv to such peti-' 
:0D stat-ng tue authority under which he as.uiisto hold Ir.xcWise such office 
or franch.sc, etc. ■ 'Iherefore, as a general thinivre havefto look M the defen- 
dant s.nswer to .ee the foundation of his dtlJ The pr|,lixity,nd confusion 
of the ple.Kl,ng8 'make it difficult to g.t at thekeciEcpo nts* upon -which the 
p.ut.e8rcly. There were two defendants-Biion. asmn or, and Dunbar a • 
. presiding officer, at this ejection. Tfie p!c% If ■ |he Jatt .; was dismissed on 
■demurrer, and he .8 out of t1,e case. The fi.rmLd. order ^ procedure hereliave 
leon, ^^..rhaps, irregular The defendant Baf n, whbse -kU is ia question. 
v^^ as i have .aid, held to all.geand show hi/titl,^ Jle should have averred 
.^1- wa» dulysdcct.d„and should have .k.d\hc ,u ..ses and meaps by 
^Hch. h,. was eIcct,^-so that, on looking a/thclaw, we ■ .i^htbe «ble to tell 
4c.hor what he alleged constituted a duf ellferto. not. L.stead of this, h. 
S^.es ^.self partii^to mere ^nojrations 'oftfe >t:rtement . of. thfe petitioner -^ 
_.th«the h«*, usurped or Vtiuded into., U^ a ,d ^rtly to as-scr. 

'^oif'j of Jaw that he "lawVuHyhoW and- exeLes the office^ ' 

mentianrng what it wusthkwas dotre that tibuld^havc the lo 
ht UU usjhat every necc^ary formalityjcJuired by the Act 



etc., without once . 

;al effect he assSrts. 

f, •_^^- . ' -V"-' J -f "H>*" *^" vj' viio ^uiii of, the Legislature* 

f^.r .«c^rnt,ng the toWnV Lnchutej a,^ particularly foJ elect ing^a mayor/.. 
. ^u*. scr„pulously adhered.to thut he ioesLt disclose 'what kese^Iii^^ "We . • 
^0 th.t we njightjudge for oii^elves wheticr^ey ww»:..hatUe>4ay ^n^i^Si " 
-no. I^-tIy,he,eJu.^^^c.,.as,dfe^^^^ : 

^niHy.?rpc\..m,d Mayor of LUute; irfat no,,<?lecfo^ WtiiJ^feel^ 
^H,-, or ^^ny manner hin^d^ ^tc. J V, ^^IT ^c«rCaIirord^ ^^•. 



Barr^! 










■ t, ".■'jt*'^ f ■*' ' ' ItR-. ■■■''(■'>,'•? ■' '' ■■'"„v'V' 



,t, -<,* 



1.5. ^, «*«'■• '*'• ■ '■'••"■' '"'*• 



rf;-ii 'A 



^2 



COURT OtVREVlKW. 



18S5. 

- ■ . - . A - 



Barron 



>^^ 



ff 



1.-* 



i^o 



11 



f 



Burfoughs s^'oylJl bo qunslicd ; nntl, unless tlio pniyor thnt ho mny bu dednrea legally 
elected C9ul J be liclj equivalent to the assertion that D^Jiad, in fafct.Wn so, 
there would be strictly nothing in this plen, tukcn totctlidi^ from whioll a legal 
title to the office could bodc^duocd. lie relics, however, on the stal/^fcnts made 
in the petition. ns consiitating the illcgaliMcs there eouipluineil of: tliu petitifiuer 
himself havinsr set up in l(is petition all the grcunds of invalidity of tli0 filootlon 
Jwhicli be relied upon to diiit the defendant, the latter held himself relieved from . 
letting up Ins title in a s|cciiil and affirmative manner. We have tho case of » 
Belliveau'vi=, J^nncaii', which, in this respect, bears great resemblance .fo' (ho 
present one, and there the Court said (7 L. C. -BfJ. 65) ? "^ Le defendeurn'est, 
pas obHj(C d'all.T audcla do la djjniando dii reqifetitiit : il desire savoir en vertu 
de quelle aiitorite lo defendeur agit. Ct> dernier la lui a in<4iquec il dyit etro 
sutisfait. Il-n'a. pas le droit d'exiger dti defendeur.plus ^i^ no'dcmande par sa 
requO'tc libelltV/' , Substanti;iliy the plaintifi" cannot cjunpFM (il/h^haa told the 
Court eveiything iT> his jsetition on which he riSjie.-' tq invalidate the election) that 
the'defendririt Lnfinew himcclf to those poin«'»L.( The onus on general principle 
„r * is 6n t!»e lafteij, a<idi)xntt m show his authority^vbut if frofii the ayertnents and | 
cvrJenco c^th«,ijtfe; side and the otl,er the fuct appears without objection by 
, eitbcf '^rty, Ihat the defendant has been legally elected, and indeed the fact 
^' appears, beeaufc th« other party himself contributes to'it as long as m have the 
' ' whole case before, «*, 'as I; think we have, we ought to dispose of it, T^herefore - 
, wq ipiil look ?it the real ctiutcntions of the parties without "paying any\nioro 
j-e^jird to the formy^bain the pam^^^^^ have seen jit to do. First of all, 

" there is tli(?j|ili^^ged<ju4ili6c,fii5oB of *^^ whicli is admitted. The |ietitioner 

then aikgt-Sitliit 0111 IhcSSlh May ,^^I^^^ nut as 3Iayof of St. 

• Jcru'-a^jcii^, . named, th^ Act of tet'^^^ the town of Laehuto, - 

,.illegallyheld.a jueetlngof tlv^tiecior^ nor holding the 

office he pretended to be dnd. to hold, and"! hcreforo.. having no authority to do 
/> mhit life did, lie then; nllogos that the 6l|0tton wjis held on the Queeii's by-th- 
. . 'day, a holiday by-hwj Ui^tf,i)"iiBb«r protlHcetl uoJ^leiral or certified copy of the 
Act of Incorporation'; thsivhe had no valuation ioM t.r list of electors, ^nd no map 
or plan fih'6#ing the limits (if the town ; ^h^H thtf if titi<?ner |uote»tel; but that 
Dunbar "hcvertheless prboeeded to fc ike mid.iec|(i\^o .noniiantions of councillors 
f^rtha sevcraiwards, !(ndals9 of a atayor, and another cijijuidate (Mr. Simpson) 
'\ 'bcipp .proposed^; a poll wasgranttJd ipr Ihe l^t of J^^ That on the 1st of 
Juno 3tr. James Wi|[aitt acted as deputy [iv^iding officer, of the Centre ward, 

■ ^ and proceeded, to, t«ke t|c votes fiir both candjt^ates, he hi^i'lig no legal authority 
to do so, and, notwithstindirtg petition<!r.V p»jk'st,"hc adt^iuistegsd to the voters 

" ail oath written^ ouls'Tjn paji^i-, but not the Ojitli required Jl>j'' the law. That Siiitt 

■ ' hud nosuffieicni or proper valijirtioii>od ; that he foti^d.hlmself, and Dunbar 
j^ aiiutittiitcredf thie fttth to UitH, and, in fact, thero>koo legid Palttatioti roll in exist- 
ence. That one McJ^it<ni.s acted in the i-mn law^ai' fflanner in the east ward : 

' and that subsequently- Duq^bar deJslarB^ M*" :i»«**Kt <^uly elected as -mayor. 
That on th« 8th4;i^e Dunb-.ir entftroi upon and ex,fs**ed tto office and took the '-J 



» 


T 


^■'. 


.««»■•, uii.. ui.iKHcii »niuiuioi,(ii^u It w>,iu« camicmars, »«o all p|. laem .exercised 
^ " their office tllegal^v 'these ate ail' the groaiwL> of co-Hrtmnt, and, encounterodas 


k'- 


»« ' 


,•: 





>>^p 



'count OP RKVrf.W. 1885. 



f 



tho p<,titJ6h is by .ho plea E h^lrca-ly n.cntioncl. ft lu,' ..,. f.^, ,,p „,„ ^ 
of the c:,8* cverj-tlung from which it is contund.J on t!.o ono si.lc tl • t i! 1 f ^ 
dant usurps the office, and, »„ ,l,o oti.er th.t l.e Uh. 1.' ""' 

under the authoritv of Rdlivo,,, J ''':«'*'•".' «'"- '^-••'' '^^ercso of.r, and 

M i.uo us to ;j:^^ :^r^"';;tr 

appear that the defendant iMuOiM .ad lJw:^;;,^;f ^^l^;';,:^^ 
duDt'8 exercise of the office of Mivor i^ rftnvoA ti • ""' - 

appears frou. tb.pleadin.., h<.J ver d^c ke J''^"""V"^r'"f '''"*""''* 
petition itself does not «ll.;aWof .1 -^^ "'?' ^"' '''^'^ "'"''^"^''' ''>« 

■ r,T;;rr 'X: t'r "- '"""■'« ---^ ^-"J' "■'-^; i ' 

unit 13 tlio Aotlomcorporaletlielma afLioliiit, (-43 Vi„ „ -7 n 1 7 ■ 
"Inch I will call tlie ipocial A»f tl,o oihar i, il,. T X ' 'i"*""). 

Cl.»8«.Aa/40vi« I o»V..lirr •,, ,, '''° Corporation, (}™«,„1, 

.»»»,».. ,.,t ..o,v,t,t*:c;:or i :,ir.;?z,':rt.'"r? 
Cit.d i„ our a..;;: tr f pS: cwT:?' ° '";""""- "^ '• ^ 

.»> imp<»«i.. a. ,,„ ,„„, h,a „, ,;, J ^^x^trrr "T 't ■ ■ 

i«co„a „,e,„l„r or A,u„ of *e 3 ,u',.«. Jl . ,' , ,?.'!. T '''"'"" - 
lioti the roaid.o.» r«,«iro J ,M' U „1L ^ "'"**: '' ' »' "■« '■" ■!"» »1». 

«.e ..„ P.«wo„?.c;:;.r,.™^- t;r;.!^:;^^^^ ir:-"**' 

sion that seems to iroply tint a lio ...i ,ul ,.„ -k i. J , /^ ^ '^ ""^ ^^P^^^s- 



Bunronghi 
B«rron. 



'Vfl find ftlit fe 



gii.alumuu »u i.ug uuid>, UH ^ve.do,besld«s thfca of 



by legal title or not. t\ 



i?n, as to riding ani 



couM be mayor of Laehute buMWse w4io caul J 



r^nust he i>rpsn .»^.^^ ^f 



mayor whether 
writiij^ tnanusonpt. If no one 
read ,8mne 6f ther manuscript, io 









84 



(•i)i:ilT OF RKVlEW, 18S8, 



T 

! 

IF- ', i 



I- 

i . : 



f i' 






f 



|.<3ir- 



\ 



BurrouBh. *'"» c;nw.^tlio town woul I I'^miifi a loijR ti.iio witliaut pno. \Va>mi LardlyL 
B«r'roD. *'V.' '^ ' ^''*'' ' ''''"''' ^" 'c"«>- that Mr.. Birrdn «:in write when m arc rcfor/od 
to ras wriin.}: hy the pctitioucr himself nnJ sco hi. synnt.irc t-. his donoMlL 
, > in ihis o:>8C wni icr. i., n very .^-oo.l h.md ; t.or Rh,-.il ,*o t.-.ke ort our«lve? to d Ibt 

th -t the person who is m-cnYroi,, the cvidc...co id this cu^ to ho^llie offlcoi of 
.,. c crk of the Circuit Court «:..! J. I'., „i,d ahohn, hell that of rogiHtrnr, canfead 
u:uM..a.|.t. ri.., re,t ,'f .ho .i.K.lilicatiHn is enfaMUhcd hy tl.6 evidon/u of 
Mr. ^\uIko^. 1 i.e ,.,..u thi,.,. i« th.t l»u,.b«r w;.s aot the poP^o,, i^diLod 
/ by the Pp't-iMl Aot as tl... proper pcrsod to hold the olwtiAn..' Thi/ can 

hard J- ho- H.. ously ,„et,.nl..d; TI.9 person hvlieated in tho ,pcdJ Act 
WU8" Patrick S. I.u,.bar,- -Mayor of the said p:.ri.h of'St. j:r«;ic,..,i* 
whereas he..,H i.nyor of St. Jc.u.ulcu. d'Argente-it. If thii w«ru aMo-h Jwaco 
tho olj^ctu... ,.M:^ht bo.scriaus; but nothfrvg of that kind is^ urM i MlP 
Act n...aut the p.ri.h of St. Jerusalem, wl.ioh it h.d mentioned alre,id Jin tho 
proau,h.e.n8 S'. Jeru-aiom, in tho couf.tj of Argeotcuil. Ho was not ilv tho " 
r.:;!,, J crsoo, but he proccclc lia the riyht w.y under the Statute., n«twlLta:.d- 
»igtl,.i protest of thepetition^R^eeivcthc non,inalion and grant pjl Mm 

it tn/f ''' ^^'- •'"'"' ^- ""'" ""'' "'« •^""' P'«^"ibed Jh„ A.t;.: 
Jlc and Mr. .Mclnnes were appointed by hi.u, and that i.s rfll we have t . I.«»k to; 
ns to the.r authority in "their tvvUardn of the town. They ,re JdWtJ* 
attacked, and are «ot called upon t^defl-nd them.selves. The otilf .jLmaini, ' 
Jiucst.ons arc tho.^e rolatin,- to the cl.etion Jfaving been hcQ on- thJQ.eenC 
luthday, acd t. the absence of a legal va]uatio^ roll. A, to the flrJ thedec- 
jon was not held on the Quecu-Hbirtlidn^ Uut:e«4l«> dnjraftefwa?a, ikich wa, 
. ihd -oih, «nd W..S al«o the very day indicted by the cxprws authority of . he 
■ special St.tute. Section 10 enacted that it .hould be held on tlie first Mond.y 
-fter the famcn day., non frnn. the sanction of the Aet. The Act^a, sr.netioned 
on he 9thof M.,y, and the L>r.,h wa, tl.e,rePSrc U.e proper" day. it,wa.s agreed 
^ that thpre was no v.lu.ition rdr in forc^ but the; evidence of Walker (dil idv 
referred to ftn another point) shows th,-.t.it w.as used and ad cxfracf ma Jo fro... 
u. a« the law direct.. It was the onl/on'c and must hare bcea the one referred 
to :u the Statute. If ,he argument for the defendant ha. any m.anin- it i, th-u 
the deetion was p.cm.ture. and'no mcai.s^si.ncd for carrying it out?but thu - 
would go too far,- for the Statutii di.sti.Kitly enacts th.t the election shallbe held 
on the 3p.h May ; thereforcjield it must be. rf is said the- m.-u^hidery i.s innde- 
juate, but the bt.tut. s^-s you must adapfJSe oM to present use. We are" 
. bpundV g»ve effect to these Actsif they have not been complied with we f.ii to 
^ sceho^w thel could bc^cvecutrtd i«^^.gther niai>ner. Under sec. 60 of the 
• general Act the quaiificjti n.. of.elect.rs are fi.,ed. » Ua^er su'Cseo 4 of t'.'.t 

V . r* °i^K;ir*'r,"'" "^'^ "^'^ •'''"' '■'' 'l"]i''fi«»t-n of the electors, and ■ 
.: ^ouglft,fifi,U^!e conte^ tUc q*,ayfie.tion of' no one elector was disp«,^ 

-..Wo bavfr"«ofl.v4g4# 'vit^' ttSc ty-otehcts of partis.ms. We must protectXtlic 



'-7, 



■4 •:■ 



«• ilA, • "/ '• ». ujuoi) f>t:uiect\Uie 

Of t^^tJ^s^tOic-public-nnd w confirm tboir choice unless W 



» *- 



'^.",. 



^^cc1L-»t theJawt:!^|be?n i>iuhie§ in its exercisf. 






/>c Lk Konii^i^ fb| th«i resfondent. 



JudgmoiiV ooiifii ' im*d 



^ 






^ 



■*>'' v; IV" 



• ( » 



*.»» 



i -I' 



''^'„. * 



I. I)y 






» 



Co»viwi JoiriKfiojf, J. . ^ • " ] 

THE BXCUA.VGE BASK OF OANADjL 



■ ' ■ ,\ 






*>-.:.::.:\ 


:■■„,■ ,,....^1 



' Vi. 




<?■. 



•THE MONTREAL Clfv A DISTRICT SAVLVGSflLVIC, 

.u« capw ,tock of ,1,0 B^kiirB , 1 fowir,?'- rt ""^ "" ".'"r "f 

fj.n ,lnf«n-i .„* «*'^"aiigi. D uiK (pi.untiff), j>n which It \% contended thai 

that tl.o defon.i;„ ! !' ' ^'""'"■"' "''"''*' > ""^ *h«" ?» P'^" «l%inK 

„d hll ^ '^ r '^. '" «"""•>"•"' -""^o. with tl.e names of the feorrowe J 
and the amaunt of stock pledged by cuch. There is a^ritten aduH^ir^ftcS' 

Ei U A M ^ .""^ "'° "'"^'^''y ^"' '^« •'"'l". ■»'« «" admitted ; a„r 
hen it ,s further ndmU^ed that' the copies of transfers of sfo'ck produced bv 
do/M«„t.s arc true copies of the transfers of^aid-i^k „h appear g ZZ^^. 

denlff "' r' ""'—' ""^ •''*^*i--'-'«307.haresL/rLiveil?to 
'a 1 ;:::/'" ^"■•'.-41'^"^.- ^''-^^ seveml au.ou„ts .„e„tio„ed in theadnn. 
as clLuerai scour... es Tor ropnymcnt of ad^ifean.ado by the b^nk,dcfcnd- 

^cvor, that the pi liiitifthud 






"A-: 



... "^ Tj ■ 



nnt, to-tho.e Heyerui parties J lSi'.ioridmi»e|Sr< 

"L "!!'"'^° '".'^^ ^'' "'« ♦■•""*'«'«ions belw#e„^^ bank defendant a-.dthose 



tiMirin* ♦»,>; /. , • ■"••''""■■'' ""'•«»^=" me nauK actenUant and those 

p. .r.cs, the transfers be.ag n,ade in the /orm in co.nn.on use, and being, on one 

" f ;J";P'y "" "PP-cnt nnqnnlifled transfer }^ the owners .of the .hares ; anl 
" p r tt";r "T''"' •^"'•""''^ accept^ce.. Fro n these aduusstens of the 

Hntcdto be v^heiMfr the defcdnnts ar. subject to xlouble Hability on these 
shares under the i..^«mstane«.. .The defendanVs plea, or, a^^ all event-, the / 

a-guageof aparfof .^, as ivoli as what fell from one of-the Lamed counsel for / 
Uho.dcfendants, would ^ut the case as coming under the 26th section of tl.<^'' 
litnking Act, and its amendment by the 2nd secMpn of the 43rd Vict c 22 
wh.cb ..imy view of theoase would be all wrong. %te 26th see. of the Bnikr,..^ , 
Act 34 V.C. ch. 5, atJd the amendments made to. it b^ the second section of the 
« Vic. ch. 22, are obviously intended to protect the person^and interests men- " " 
t.o..ed .„ them, that is to say, on the ongjiand, executors, admJnistrators, sruardians 
or trustees dealing with the funds: of others, and on the other tektatftrs, Jntesfatcs U 

wardsand otherperspns interested in su"*-***^'-' "^ • • -- • * * " 

.oerning saving banks (Si'Vic'T) are 
really p{>.s3eHsing, and, T tiljllk, onmplntply . 




; XTie provisions Ufithe Act oon- 
p which I woidd call atteotisn," as 



\ 



< 'i 



< m 



of iliBpfjia c ftt t^ as e . ^\w iltji^ 









„>" 










'H' 



JUPRfllOaoOUUT, 18W. 




Tlppf ^(Mtitii In Nueh 
, . ity^liey na/ijr toko ;"N«T»d; 

f lie MoBtirnl **''''^*'' '"'' •"'"'.f '"8 P*yn«cnt of lonns niada ou, such oolluiorol Mouritj. 8^ 17 
City* Diiirict "J*"! " They nmy inregt thoir doponits to on oniount ndt" •fWeJing - In any 
Hikyibg* ti«,iik. onge tlio«»liKcribo.l cnpitui in any utoA or public socuriUon of tJic Dominion, or 
of oily of the provwcca of the Dominion, or in any niunicipnl debonturen or In 
the manner provided in the, two neiL/ollowihi; •uctions niid nw othcrwiHe,'* ♦" 
• * Section 18 days :— " It fi(i«II be lawful for tli* bank to loan such moncyi 
to th* nniount of itR HubsorihjJd capittil, and no more, upon the personal necurily 
of.iudividttiilfl or corporution«, provided that oolliUoral scfluritie* of tito naturo 
, mentioned in the next fta-cceding Mention, or British or fdroigu public Keojuinea 
or »tock of Homo cimrtorid biiiik in Cauadu, or any 8to«k in Inoorporntuil build- 
^_ '"B «ooiotioo, or in bonds or dobonturos, or stock of an^ incorporate^ in^titui ion 
or company bo titkcji in addition to such pcriiouul o/ corporute^security, with 
authrSrity to sell such soouriticfi if tho loan bo not paid.** * •». * Then OPmos 
section 19, by which, if the loans aro not repiitd within thirty days after Ihoy 
"uio due, " the bank m:iy sell the sccwiitiefi nfter. wotjice to the borrower or piirty 
^ V depositing such coUatpritl security," etc., etc. It'/ppcars to me tli«t the nioniont 

it is admitted the defendant only held these Ml shares as the depository of 
other-; who, were borrowers, and wlio plodgod/tlicm as collateral security for 
^ i ''''"" ^''*'^ '""^ borrowed, it foll/ws riiut so receiving them for that 
ItlToy were flot tlie owners, nor consequently shareholders of the 
Jnk in the sense of the 68ih sfec. of the Act o«i(ccrning banks and 
Hy the Statute they could dg absolutely nothing, with the shurcs 
,/'"=>" t""^ K*"'' Payment of thcif debt i^tho manner strictly described 
by the 19th sec. of their Act. Sttving« banks have no powers in respect to the 
stock of other banks, except those given in tlii« Statute. It is a public law apply- 
ing to all institutions in this province and in Ontario. Everyone dealinj; with 
theiu is bound by the law as much as tlieso banks ore bd^nd thcnisclves.'Savinga 
banks have tio |»wcr given them to acfjuiro stock in any manner, or" for any 
purposc^cejptB secure loans. Their po.Mtion, then, is), not "^h at (to use the 
. language of the Act) of " a|i executor, administrator, guardian ^r trustee of of 
for any person named in thi'liooks of the bank." If it were, they might be no 
n.orc liable than they are now ; but, in u)y view, neither the 20th* section nor 
the amendment applies to the pres-nt case td all. Where I find the law to 
'detcrmitie whether they are liable or not is ip the 18th and 19th sections of the 
Savings Bank Act that I have cfuotcd, and they say to ull the world (the plain- 
tiffs included) that the defcndaiitVwerc pledgees of these shares, and could not 
by law be anything else • and tJiat, of course, was the very best notice they could 
possibly pet as to how the defendants acquired the shares. Therefore, the defend- 
ants must be held to have acquired them iu that manner, i.e., in the only man- 
ner allowed by law, and the plaintifc must be^hcH to have known that they did 
80, whether as a iiiattcr of fact they did actMjIy know- it or not. The plain * 
principles affecting the riglits of property in plhdges are all we need consider, and * 
ai^ong them none is plainer or more certain than that the pledger, and not the 
" htrthing-ptedged Kntilli is disposed of to satisfy the ^ 




■.,(«>. 



••J) 



t 



% 



WHtr* 



SUPERrOfi ConUT, 1888." 





HJnto tUtit actual poawii UMk„of 0|» 
' ^^r of oni to bo diJtfKuiAd » ^ I 

■ a. ,. ' CilyA DIdlnct 

"I Aud th(3 holdecf Of 
^fof lilto Cwl* I JMt^, * "' 
and bunking k«»»l|'' lj% 

is 'br thtt bankinjff Inwi ' 
to diOjnont ptoviimoa mA • « 



«onr«od this, whether inth, o„^ 
' *f. M ill thia esse a» tU« .Suitut© d 

tho Exphnnge bank wn* ftcir ow, 

contrary to the law. the genorni .,., 

J>lcJ«c8i« of course, and beyond all d 
Just cited declares it fo ho. Tho atiit 
just whon, Jt was. There n.uy havS u..^ „ 

proceed f,o,« ,ho Parliau.ont of C.nnd,., th.-y mm, to diffi,«n» •• • ' • . 

laws of their own. and wh,.i« fl.<. f i i ™^ J«»>r»nt ptovin«5o« witk 

dcternunublo by tho law 1 h "" '^''*"* .^« ^^^'^^ ^^ Hght. of parlie, m 

. «Ja, bef..„, iXLi "f 1 «?:^r" !'"" "'^^ "'""• Hurrin Cower C^ 

"hnro.. hiin»«o that «ouId b. touch r^f^I^l^ w ' '"f '^' ••^"^T"^* ba.^lk 
vine., Le,i.ature, but in ^^y^^r:^':!^:^,^^ 
tho Parliament of Quebec ni vL « o. "^,7 "* J«™* «»o<»k companies, 
i"« Mock m collateral .l^fV 1 li' I '. ' "''' f ^ "'^ ?^* " "° P''-^" "^^'j' 
«^-'.oiaor in any of C^^^ I^^ S^l^f 1^/'"!"^ ^"' 
son pled'' ncBuch Ftook .l.nii t • i '"'^^^^^ oifWf.fhc Act) but the nor- 

Canada; it only applied t^^Z ^^ ^'-ngo the law ^f Lower 

(•rr.n^M.m, McC^ijf^,U,, for pLintlf "^'^t"" '^' '''''"^'"'- ^ 

^ . . COURT OF mmSrrsaac , . 

. ' . _ •^'OMREAL, 31st MARCH. 1880 

Cpmm JotfcVsoN. TASClIERfcAU A.VD DoirEUTV J J 
Hon. RODt|tfp>^E LAFLAMilE, ",' '' 

THE .MAIL PRINTING COJlEAifK.' ' :. 

adoptH proceeding, to briagrS;; f^^L^^^^^ 
: ««>nt?, orAri,, to avail l.itn^flf of th/aL iZe^.i T, ,h ^^ *'*^*''' '" *''*""«»- 
. ceeding by the otter .ideTo com^SZTollT'"T'^''''''''''^^''^ 

except^artt cannot afo^r^ari %.ail 11^ of it ''*"'' ^"^ "■»'" »«> 

_- , :^bat IB oases of personal wrongs t£e Oo«rt wiirno* !..♦ 

. ,.. ««««iy« "»t«.«frordinrernal evident of Sn-i-, 'i**^ "' "•» a««rantly 

Johnson, J. -This was an an»f;.. J«"«°f «« Prejud.ce and partiality of ,he jur/ 



I 



'i* 



i;-it| 



ii 



h f 



PLAiNTirr; 



— S«t 



*^1. _ :-. ' " ■ ":,-' :. __- ^ _. ■ ._\_.; 



\ 



-f' 




. f ,-."." ■■■■/■ t 


« ■ 

' ' ' ' ' ' » 

, ■./■• • 
• •' :.■'.-•■' '' 

m • ■ - ' 

' ':>■■ ' , ■• 


• ' ■■ . . "■■* ■ ','■■■ 




' , - 1 ^ g , : : 


:/^S■",^■. .•:::::'''H.-,^ :■:■;.:, -..Hi': 


: '■'"• ;-"; .'■■;": ' ■■;•■' x ■ 




.■ . ■'■•:..: ^^ V'-:''.;. -■■-'■ ■:--''y)l [:''■)'■:""■■ .ViT^'.:- . • : 







\, : '•? 


' f'" 


. / ' '■>■ 
\ ■ ■ 1 


■' i ■ ■ 


f b r 




7 :; 






1 




1 


k i 




* 


% 


, t 


•| 


• 


\ 


' 


,, 






\ 








. ^ 


k , 






' -D*;:j 




a 
1 ' - 


\\ ■■ ■ • 

. ■ \ 



#, 







^ 



IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 











fer ^. 



e 



*5. 



1.0 



M 



•:; lii 

::• 1^ 112.0 



1.8 



\M 11^ IIP 



y 



.■*i' 



V 



<^ 



f 



v: 



c?^".--^ y 







-,pf 



. .! 



Pljulogiapliic 
.Sciences 
ion 




23 WEST MAIN STREET 

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580- 

t716) 872-4503 




1 ajH' 









r^T 



It •> -- 



li 



88 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1886. 



Hon. R. Ln- ca^o? ; nnd the whole caso came oh to be tried before a jury, who found damages, 
flaninie yi^., $6,000 for the libel ia the neVrspnper and $4,000 for the libel in the dcfop- 
"TlieMailPr'm-clant'H plea. 



liaii.v 



Tbcrearc now four moUWBcfbr^the : One by plaintiff for jud-^ment 

in his favor for the who|le amountofdamajicls found and costs ; and then three by 
J the defend:iiits,viz., a motion for judjimciit in^hcii' favor nonohHtante Mendido ; 
'Jnd, a motion in urtest of judgmeut ; and 3rd, a niotrOn for a new trial. The 
defendants' motions are, of cgntW,^ to be considered first, aSj if eiilier of them 
sliould prevail, the plaintiff cou\d not at present have judgment at all ; and for a 
similar reason questions arising from the record should be looked at before con- 
sidering the application for a neW trial, which might not be reached at all, if it 
should ti^rn put, under the other motions either that, accbrding to the record, 
judgment ought to be arrested, or that it ought to be rendered for the defen- 
T3ant notwithstanding the verdict. The grounds urged at the healing in support 
of these two latter ftiotions refer to the demand for damages, on account of the 
'calumnious allegations of the defendant's ple^sj; and notoniy is the validity oftlie 
demand itself questioned, as it properly njight be under these inotions, but ita 
effect, even supposing it to be good in law, isN^jectcd fo, be'causc, it is said, it 
uiay huve created confu!»ion as-to^'tha causes of dauujges, audv«Ji»c plaintiff may 
have got not only separate damages for the llkcl in the plea, but increased 
damages for the libel in the newspaper on account of the aggravation of it by the ' 
plea, and so might get paid twice for the fame thing. Thiii,last, however, is of 
course an argument that could only be used under the motion for a new trial. I 
sball not stop to say anything now of the new law of procedure introduced by 
Art 433 C. P. C. TJliat subject was fully considered in the ca.'»e of Ansell vs. 
"the Bank of Toronto in this court on the 30th May, 1874 ; and it waa there 
shown that the motion nonohstmte veredicto, which in England could only be 
made by the plaintiff, having, in this coufttry, been extended to the defendant who 
always had, and still has, his motion in arrest of jud*ment, was considered by 
the Privy Council in Grant vs. the iEtna Insurance company (12 L. C. E., p. 
- 386) to be of little importance in practice. In AnscU vs. the Bank of Toronto 
this Court said : " Nothing can be clearer therefore than that, although both, 
•parties have now the right to make a motion ,of this description, it must be 
made upon the same grounds as would formerly have entitled a plaintiff to make 
it, viz., upon the insufficiency of the allegatiotis of the other party ; therefore I 
should say at once, as a getieral thing, that if a demand, whether principal, 
incidental or additional, or whatever it may be, shows no legal right to make it 
at all, i. e, if it could be properly demurr«jd to, it cannot be tfe^groundwork of a 
judgment ia favor of the parly making such demand, and iP would be only a 
matter of form whether the other party asked that the judgment might merely 
be arrested as against him ; or whether he asked that he himself might get 
judgment against his opponent wh5 should show no right in law to make any 
such demand, notwithstanding a verdict in his favor. There could be no ques- 
tion, rtTMSfi^t as to whether the allegations of the pies were in themselves 

sted that they were-Botfit-WttSpDly-Kud" 



COIJKT OP review; 1886. 



89' 



they were priviiecod AsTo »!.«»-„ j "^ —■ ■ 

g.ves a good ground of actio^ The l! Ji \ ^""'*^" " ''^°' '» '' Pl°« *""^«« 
qumion for us (15 L. o. J., p 28lV C '■""f '"- ^'''' "«"'«« that The MinPrin. 

favor bj Judge PolIeUe Thon th^ '"■'^'"''"j^ decided in the plaiutiff-^ "'n«Com, 

one, but restored 10 App;,l::i^?-^^^^^^^ i"^.-o • ""^* - 

t^'ourt. I say unaniu^oj.,,^ beeause W r , '"n""" ''''" constituting ,he 
extent of the proof he nd^ifted thepri I^H '' ^""' ^''^^'^^'^ "^ '^ »''« 
of that ease i„ ,ho least affbeted bT Sw ?r?^. ""^ " '''^ ""^''-i'^ 
appellant and Truteau respondent 1 7 L X"lt-f^'^'"'""' "^ ^"'^""'^ " 

vfiy straiigo if it were, as Gadbois v, TrnfT '/•,-' ^^- ^""^^ed it would be 
w..h one cxeeption n« P.caud v.! Price nLr f'°'^'^ ''^ '^' '"'''' J^^^^^^ - 
whatKheid wasnot that an incidental LTnd K tk" ^'"'-^ "''"""'^^ ^ '^"'^ 
cannot be made, for ,he jud.rn^.lt ad.uir Z^^ ^^ '"'*''° P'*^^°'" c«««^.- ' 

^tional allegations in the nlturoo atlT r ' '""'''' ^""^ ""'^ "^'^^ addi! 
^s.ne demand could n^ot b/ailol":; tthe d'^T '"^^^«"PI-^' '^o the 
•■'ct.on. Pacaud vs. Price however /r,"''"" ''"^ P'o^d to the 

Jo„.a„d' to one already .br.u-^ht " 'dec d . T ""^''r ''"" •"" " ''"PPlc'^entary • 
.f^i^er the question of fG:f^lt:^^^^^^^^^ therefore, to ■ . 

daats themselves took of the mat r' for hlV ""^T' '"^^ "'''' '"'^^ ^^f«"- 
. naanncr, denied the right of the plaTutiffL I T' •^"""""^ ''' < '» anj 

"lleged the defendant. LhavetnS^r^^*^ ?"''-'' '^'•'^^ « 

-de„.exeeptioutothe;:::t^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ' 

•"ade it, was defective, and a.ked rto . !. .. T'"^' '" ^^' ^''"^ i" ^hieh he 
t-e-ul -(de„tardJma,d m y tS S ^^^""'"^'°^ •'^•'"^ 
-jected '. That wa^s the extent of the defifc^ '""*°'^"*' "^"^ ^« 
of the plaintiff to make that additional 7TT P''**°«'??^»gain..t therigbt 
of action, if it had been i„ ^^^Z:^:^'''^' "-*«^'« ''St 
oever was questioned at all Th.,. 1 "^^ c^^atoed in the t>le« it° 

incidental Land rema? d of^ cr/C;: '"^"'"^ "^^ ^"--^' -^ ^h 
defendants joined issue upon the fS ^ ,' T" -'''f *'' "" ^ '"'^ '^^ 
pojnt of form cannot be renewed now 'ndef h. "" '' '^' *'""" «« *" 'he 
-J..dg«.e„t or to give the defendantsLlml „? 7 ""' ''''''' '' «"-' '^^ ^ ' 

:Hot.ons of course go straight to the rit^f a" ;r f"''^"'*'''^^^^^ 
'"g >t. But even as to the fo J ado^H K ?u ' '"'*""°' '<» ">«^»"" of assert- 
quo^tion that can be raised .Ttlrof^et''".? '"° ^^'^''''^ - '^eTn^ 
^be form of an incidental demaL t,^^T^''T^' "^ ^" ^^'-"^ '^at 
according to Pigeau, who is really the Z'' ^"l.'""^''" «" <>»" Code an*. 
n.pdern French ?aw. (SeeQr^ur\T " «"■• C-'d* ^ and also under thf 

'"S even of the rights of third pa tfrretltb '"^'^"'"* •"""'^'^•) Treat- 
authors say :-.Or,,i une partie ahl2TT" '"'"""'''^ •" P'«^di"g«. the 



, '««•*, etc, This seems to meet eractlx the 



-*;- 



*>-^- 



gOURT OF REVIEW, 188C. 



/ 



Hon. R. La 
flammo 
vs. 
The Mail 
ting Co, 
Pttj 



pre 



; M ■ 




I 



i 



pension oHl>e defendants at tho bearing, that under sub-section 2 of Art. 14J^ 
y, P the word*." connected with the right claimed by such suit " wore to bo 
<restr'iifcd to a mdto increase of amount, BUch as rents accrued since action 
brought (one of tho examples given by Pigeau). I said at the hearing, and 1 
hold to it now, that "c^nected with " has no such restrictod meaning ; and in 
truth it would sown to be ^cre trifling to hold that it can be iu tho dcfo..da|^f,^ 
"mouth uudor any circumstuV to say that they havq'*|.15ad.d to th.ir action 
thin-9 that have no conncction\ith U ; and apart from the articles of the Code, 
and looking j,t the principle of thVthing, and in the just spirit of our laws, what 
reasonable objection qould there be H«'l»"nSinS t»"« additional demand in thia 
way? We have to deal with the sanis parties; tho whole thing is bofoic the 
Court. Why two separate writs? " P^q^o'." °« ^"*^'«' «"y«, " »" «'™uit 
d'actions ? " /I am not sure tlmt it is not e^n to be commended on the score o|; 
discipline. Boucennoand Bourbcau, modernXFrench writers on procedure, ip 
vol 5 pp. 22 and 2.3, point out how, under tho^^w of France, parties to suito 
can only be made criminally responsible for calumWs eiran^er* a /a caiMe /and 
by permission of the Court given in the case in whicXtho.se calumnies have been 
uttered ; and they say distinctly that although a party offmding in this way 
there would not bo answerable criminally, the Court can in tho sanjc case m 
which the libel is committed condemn to additional damages. " 11 n aura pas 
alora a repondre devant la justice criminelle de <xt abus coujmbh de son droit, 
maisle tribunal sai side la cause pourra, en.statuant sur le fdnd, prononctrla 
suppression d^ecrits diffamatoires et condanner en des dommages tnteret^. 
This'^seems-to me, I confess, a vast improvcmetit|yhe English proceeding for 
contempt, against a party who, instead of defej^fimself withm the limits of 
ri.^ht should make a cloak of his right to invoki^P-otection of the law, for tho 
purpose of libelling and insulting his opponf?!, which the French law calls an 
" abus coupable de son droit. " ~ \ • i i 

We now come to the motion for a new trial ; and, though it is drawn to include 
almost the edtire list of possibl^rounds for new trial to be found under that 
head of the Code of Procedure (Aft. 426), we confine ourselves, of course, to 
what the parties moving confined themselves to in support of their motion. 
The first thin" urged was the ab.sence of a material witness. Well, -there is no 
doubt that un'der No. l&of the article of tho Code the absence of an imjwrtant 
witness might call u^n us to apply it under proper circumstances but tho 
defendants seem to have gone over this list of grounds for new trial - withojit^ 
reference to any poj^sible grievance suffered by .the party, or as it in all the 
•instances mentioned new trials were to be given as a matter of course without 
any reference whatever to the circumstances, either of wdiver, consent or acqui- 
escence by the parties themselves ; now, of course, as we pointed out a^ the hear- 
ing the absence of a witness may or may not be a grievance or a source of injus- 
tice according as the party avails himself of his right to have the ovidenae or not ; 
the 'point was Virtually disposfed of by the question put by my learned brifhei 
Taschereau : " Did you ask a por^tponement on that, account ? " The answer 
"lyas " No ; "and -that-of -cottwe decided tb»poiat^jit~-ono o . Al l -tbft 



ing 



COURT OP REVIEW, 1886. 



M* 



autI.oritie. aro in the notes to the chapter on new trial i„ Lush's Practice ; a'hd Hon. n\^ 
^No. JO o< that chapter «• find the ruit stuted with the cases supportin.^ it\ «<"""» 

Where. B.ater.nl witness w,., ab.sont, when the cau^e waae,Ucd on.etc.rand ThoMlilPria. 
whery no fault m impntablo to the sufforin? pftrtyi^etc, the (^ourt will, to further '^?« "°»- 

* nimnr n nnur f*>i.kl • U..* :<**!. .-t n.i 



.1 . \i r- :• »u»criiis pnrijr.-eic., tlio Uourt will, to further 

tlio en>^ofju8tice, allow a new trial ; but if the absence of the necessary evidonoo ' 
was kno^. the party should have n.oved to postpone the trial, and, not having done 
.so, the Court will not .ntcrfere." It ,hay appear trivial to enla.-ge on such a 
pomt ns this, but tr.ais by ju;;j.„re c^mp .rativoly rare and exceptional in Lower 
y C.mada,Mnd the rules tlutsovern^thein are not often referred to. There are 
rome very strong cases in Grahan. & Wator.uun's " I„ Noti.," p. 212, showiuK 
not only the rulcS^o be this, but that one of th^ reasons of it-;,nd a vrry good 
one. too-,8 that the p.rty asking a new trial would get an unfair advantage in 
17^% T '^r-r'^r' °^"'«P'"'"tiffwas. With reference to this j^fnt, 
see Ch. J Mercduh s Lmguage in C;^nnon and Huot. where that learned judge 
n,d h;.t the>rty there ought to have moved for an adjournment of the Court 
to got Ins w.thess^ Tl,e next ground urged was the insufficiency of the assign- 
«K..roftacts.Th« would bo a good ground, supposing it to be well fouJe d 
... f..ct .md If the dcfenflant. are in a position to urge it. At the argument. I 
re erred to Cannon and Iluot (1 Q. Law Rep., p. 139), and I was told it l... 
.ot m ,..ant ; but the same ground as this was urged, there in express terms, only 
ho msuffieiency of the jury's answers was urged, as well as the lrisuffioi«t,cy of ^ 
the fncts assigned Chief Justice Meredith, after citing authorities against the 
.-.ght to get a nev^riaVwhefo the party had not previously availed himself of 
ho ,ject.on, sa.d : " I am therefore clearly of opinion that we ought not now to 
u.a.ntam the objection to the assignment of facts, and to the answers of the jury " 
It IS not clear to m«j; however, that anything but the answers (and not assign 
meat of questions) could ha,e .been amended at the trial, and here ia the pr se^nt 
ease it is not the answers at all, but the fact themselves aa assigned tha a 
^ct^d to. But the words of the learned Chief JusUoe in dmL vs. H^ 
and (he reasons, authorities and principles relied on in t\at case clearly do extend 

f.n 1 ^: ^?. '^ *^f '^ '^''' ^ ""y ^'^''' •" theWedure that can be^"^ 
ran edied at the Ir.al, it shc^ld be then Amended ; if it canL, at „11 events the 

in appeal If he were forced jo trial, and had validly excepted to the assignment 
offucts; but If he merely Lkes an exception without appealing ,«inlEr 
Fcnously adopts proceedinl to bring theVial on, both regLdl ^°' fTy X 
Vn the assignments, and practl^airy waiving his right to except;-^, in one wo^ 
A^findshis interest in gcungL as things ^e, n^i tries hu'e^t ti^Sli^ 

I \a 1 ^ "" opposed y all notioi^s of fairness and propriety that hi 

himself freely chosen to us^.tf^ his own fancied -advantage. In Jones vs 
Patten, Cited in the note to Grah\m vs. Waterman vol 2 n fi«9 J'^^^J^' 



\'p«ny. 



>. \ 



^ 



*^ 



'•\ 



0-2 



COURT OF REVIEW, 188C. 



"A. 



. '. ' ■ ■ *i<» ■ I — . ^ 

^°'flam ^"' " ?'^^"'°^"'" *=''^<'^^ unless excepted to k'foro addilbiial Nti'p8»io taken. " It is 
,.^ " said this lui'muciit, of facts wiw excepted to, aad «o it was; but when, 'und 

^tini'com-"""''*''*"^" ^ /'■^l*'° "■'"'' "" '*'° *■*'■' J'"'"t»''y. "oihiiig of the kind happened, but 
pnnv on the 13tb,i4hc day previous lo ijio trial, a paper siijncd hy the dcfondants' aitor- 
ncys was put in, oxcopting to ^10 qup.-tions assigned 'us insufficient. It is all 
iiiipoit-mt, therefore, to soo wJlethfcr tliis exccpfion was uiadq " before taking 
aJditional steps, etc., aV ruled in Jones A: Patten. Being made on the I3th, the 
trial proceeded on the Hili- witliotit any attempt to put it off, and eight days 
before that, viz., on tiui ^th, tiic defendants liad taken deci-ivc steps to bring it 
on by lodging their fiat for a venire. It was not tiic phiintiffs therefore, but it 
was tlic defendant theniscives wiio brought on tlie trial. They appear, thcrc- 
'foro (in tho language of the Prunoli proverb), to have wished to "menager lechou 
'et la chtvre; " i.e., thcy wanted tlic verdict, but they wanted also tho benefit of 
their exception in case they should not succeed in getting the verdict. It is of 
eoursc clear that all the proceedings in the case before the trial were t«kea at the . 
risk of the party taking them, in case thcy turned out erroneous an^wcre 
validly objected to in proper time by 'Hio other party. They would of coirse be ' 
at the plaintifi's risk if he had taken them ; then why not at'the risk of tjio 
.11 Jcfcndants when they take them. The party defendant then brought the case 

to trial in the state it then was, and proceeded to trial witliout objeotionj and 
called evidence and addressed the jury on the merits; and did all that-dcpcqdcd 
upon them to get the verdict. Can they do that, and afterwards, if they | get 
w^>ted, turn rouni and say what assuredly they would not have said if theylhad 
s\iccceded ?" " Is it right," as tho judge asked in Jones vs. Patten already 
.r 9i'««i " thtff the party should lie by; take his chances of success over tho er^or, 
and^failingoTit, then, at much expense of time and money on the part of other.«, 
^ d^crturnall subsequent proceedings?" xMiud, I am speaking now of the remedy 
invoked here— the new trials asked of this Qmrt; and I quite admit tbat if the 
defendants had not issued the venire a week before taking exceptioB to the 
facts, but had excepted in time, and the other party had taken out the tje'iiV*- 
and tried to force them to trial, and they had objected, thcy could have availed 
them.'ielves of their objection afterwards, if not here, at all events.elsewhere. R«t 
1 realljr cannot under the circumstances now see the use of this paper put in th^ 
day before the trial and disregarded by the parties themselves who put it in. 
- There is nothing therefore in these motions that the defendants 'situated as they '^ 
are, can avail themselves of ipi^et a new trial. 

Then another ground taken was that of manifest injustice; and to support that 
it was said that the plaintiff nii-ht have had, in Uie damages given for tho libel 
in the jiewspaper the Iwnefit df the calumny in the plea, and the Court could not 
distinguish, but we think there is no force in that argument, for the jury were 
called upon by a proceeding in which both parties participated, to divide their 
verdict into two parts— one a^jplying to the^first libel and tiie other to the sVcbnd 
—and they did so in a distinct manner, as shown bf^it^ record. It was further 
mentioned that no formal op'ion of trial by jury was made with resect to the 
is-.ue under the incidental demand. The case wa« treated as one ca^, although. 



^ 



COURT 0» REVIEWr 188(5. 



93 



^X T .^'' U was properly put under the two «cp.rato head. i„ Hon .1 La 
Zldlr: "t^""'"^'" '"" ''*^""' "P*^ -tI.utav„il„bleexoer "-- 

fn " M r '-'"'P""" ^ "*" '^'^' "'^^ ^'^•'y '•»<1 '^''"'•"y admitted thc^ *'"« ^'»"'- 

7; ";»';"S J«.«<«>Pt to. Besides this, the defendants in their own stating '"'• 

ofaet« for thejur, (10th Oatober)J.„d included under t^^^ 

/ ^''«^7M"0B«.on*7-v.z..firsr:wheeherthocontent8ofthepIeawereiusrifiedan^l 
Kcond, whethe/thc plaintiff had suffered da.nn.c by L nrtiele .n th, „ w t 

of the r„ht oybjdet to those subjeets of enquiry by the jury. The only othe " 

^ound urge ^„dlr i^ .hotion for a new trial wa., that of xee,s«iveln>l; 

I e rule w. hUpeetKo that, in ea.#e of^personal tort, U well k„ wn a ^wa " ^ . 

ctedup^.„ Cannon vs. Huot, where the CWt said:-.' Under the sys^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ 
-1 by jury .t .s the judgment of the jury, and not of the Court, wShTs to 
, c ternnne he an.ount of damages, and this rule is held to be peeuHa rly pnlieab t 
III libi'J and slander suits." ^ "'r>y appncaoie. 

In locking at the cases which are the foundation of the law ou this subject 
one^csthatahhou..hthecourtshavenevordivestodthe 
^^}i HPsct as«e verd.c, on account of the largeness of the dama^^os they have 
* Xiirr " '" ™ '' F«^-nunort except in the ™ost ^.iir 2 cas 
^^r#lhe damages are .so outrageous and extravagant as necessarilv to evince 
. tmpcrance, pass.on, partiality Sr corruption ou the part of the jury In o„e 

TriVT/i'''' "^"'-^'""* ''' year/old-the case'oTTownJnd • 
v.. II u,hos (2 3Iod. Ecp. 150), we find £4,000 .sterling given against the de^^^^^^ 

;t"i iTu;'^'"'"^""';^''" ^••^vo.udof^xcesit ^; t 

. f us d. A hundM years later, J[.ord, Cftmden ^id that case had never been 
contradicted, or denied to bo law. And Gra. and Wat. N. T p 1 ^57 ^ol 3 

serves : " If the Court could not say these damages were excessive t'hly can 
Lardly .ay so .n any ease of slander." The position of a court of justie in sul 
a case cannot be better put, I think, than in the words «I^Lord Kenyon Ch J^ 

1 .ule ; ' m""' ' ''• ^' '"'• '''' ^"'""S'^^ ^9"M ^re^.0'00 terli„: ■ 

A .ule was obta.ued to set aside the verdict as against evideX and on the ' 

, ound ot excessive damages. It was pressed upon the Cou^hi^his qltb^ '' i 

Zlr Z IT ""''' *"" "" »PP^''' ^••«'" '^' P^per jurisdiction to 

dt 1:^^^^^^^^^ f ""^ '' ^'"^^^^ '»>»* ^-' Kenyon did „o^ 

.dm.t that. He sa.d : " Th.s .s by no me^ans encroaching upon' the jurisdiction 
arU,e jury nor drawing the questi^^ 

f^n that to which the constitution has referred it. for it is not substituting a " 
^ent judgment m the^ace of that which-has been pronounced, but requirL 
m^^i::::^^ '^^ reconsider that opinion which appears t;b<^rleous' 
W.thou tl .8 general power ,n the Court, injustice would be done in many cases 
^nder all the e,rcumstat.ces, I think the damages were much larger than ou^ 
ave been g.ven. But here, 1 doubt what conclusions I oughUo draw'om 
^11 the promises ; and my difficulty arises from my being unaMe to fix any stanT ^ 



V 



% 



I 



64 



COUKT OF REVIEW, 1886. 



Hon. R. L»-«Td by tvhioh I can atocrtuin the cxcim, which, according to irty vJk^ of tho 
flamme ^^^^ i i\^\n\^ tfiojury havorun into. Wliuro th«r» is oohuoU sUoJukI, liow oro 

Tb« Ifail Prin- the oi nirs of tho jury to be ruutiQud ? Whut utuusarc«ican we point out to thorn 
""mny.'"" ^y *'''°'' ^^^y ®"k'>' '0 ^ guided ? I should hnvo been •utiiiQoJ o?en if nom- 
inal diimnges only had been given ; but &h tho jury have ibrtged a difTorcut . 
judgment upon' tiio evidence I know not wliy my judgment should bo preferred 
to theirs uj)»)n pueh a subjeot, and, per tautnui curium, the rule was dis- 
charged." By the authorily of other and numerous oii^es it is laid dowu as ^ 
one of tho reasons for nou-intericrenco in questions of damages for jwrRonal 
wrongs, which inejudcs ail sorts of pcri'onal wron;:, but eppc^ialjy libel 
nod slander ; that there is no clear standard us in oases of injurjr to property. 
Where tho matter, therefore,, is more under the control of tho Cour^ 
whereas in such cases as this other elemontH besides more compensation for tho 
injury sustained may propcirly a£foct the verdict, aad that tho jury arc allowed 
and even advised in songe cases to consider what tho interests of sooiety as ,ffell 
as justice to tho plaintiff require,, tind by their vwdiot to punish the offender at 
^'"'■""W^ us Bijgko compensation for tho inj^ury. And i» is said that in thejo cases is 
difficult and ^n impossible to estimute prcci^iQ^ the measure of damages, 
yeh to a oertaioi^- extent are matters of sentimcDt and feeling, and not tiiiscepti- 
Sfany fixed and definite rule. There is no use in multiplying cascfs which 
mighll^ done indefinitely, and treaties arc, of course, not authority ; but as 
Urahoin and Wutermon, a work of repute, was cited by the defendants, I may 
refer to\what is suid there as tho result of reference to authority, and at p. 1138, 
vol. 3, the authors give a concise history of this mattgr: " In England, in tho 
early partVof the reign of George III., and prior to oar revolution, there was a 
series of oaMis rclutivo to tho power of the jury ovej damages in actions for torts 
which are the more interesting, because, while tbcj^support with just spirit and 
firmness the conditioaai prerogative of the jury, they define tho limits of tiieir 
power with great precision, and settle it upon sound pri^Mes. The courts say . 
there is a great difference between cases of damages which can certainly be seen, 
and such as are ideal ; as between assumpsit, tiespass, ^ goods, etc., where tho 
sum and value may be measured, and actions of false impriFonmont, malicious 
prosecution, slander and other personal torts where the damages are mutter of 
opinion. The law has not Lid down what shall be tho measure of damages in 
tort. The measure is vague and uncertain, depending upon a vast voriety of 
causes, facts and circumstances, as the state,, degree, quality, trade or profession 
of the party injured, as well atf^of the party wlio did the injury. Tho Court 
cannot interfere, unless the damages are apparent, so that they can p^pperly 
judge of the degree of the injury. Generally in such cases they cannot say 
whether five hundred pounds is too much, or fifty too little. Tho damages,. . 
therefore, mu8,t be so excessive ah to strike mankind at first blush as bein^ . 
beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous, and such as n^uifustly shav? tho '*' 
jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice or cor£.ifption. . In r 
short, the damages must Le flagrantly outrageous and extravagant, orjhc court 
cannot undertake to draw the line; fjr they have no standard by which to asccr- 



.y 



N. 



COUeIt OE REVIKW, 1886. 



05 



Jo not kaow. however thnt J !• , «'"'' •™"" "'"«» ^^tJO." 1 «"■".»« 

fur na thi« point i« 4nccrn«..l ZT 7""*''"'^ ««n>«d t" put thnir on««, „, ^ 

«hoe.i„,,iri„.„,,orr:trt^ t ^LZcr^^^^^^^ ^"-r." -^ 

granting .h«t. if such bo the f«of .„ ! • °°""* " """' •'"'"> '« 

presently con.i to that naVt nf M k ' • ""' *""' °"8''* '« ''« g''«"- I will / 

cL in 'he Zk^ ; C LoL 'r ?'• ::*"""' ^f-- ArtEer to the 
«ro beyond all doubt ! 1^'^!? V'° ^'1"°'^'" '''"'''*^ ''""-^^ 
the cases in whieh new tils have'b "'''' '^"^ '^'"^ '^ """* "'*> '^^ to 

,da.„n«es (for the ru e" t a! „ r".^""'°^ '" '^"^'T '' ^'' '°«'J«1"''te 

hove never fllnelJd w rl t ^ " ; , '"'"r^^^ ""' '"'"'^ ^''"^ ^''^ <'-«^ 
by tl«, jury huvo Ln „7n iTr '"'""^*''"' '"J'"'*'*'^ «"«» "*>«« of PO*or 

new tril/ And we alTd If" r''> •"" ""'^ "•"'°^^' -•>'<"• '» »"« 
referenee to .11 the e^oulsta 1 ' r T''^'""* "" "''"^•' ""-'''"-J ""h 
B1..K 1,327. citlrrr^rd w'; J"" •" "-'''' ''' ^«^' 2 ^^- 
sterling damage, for a lalieiou, ' "'"•""''^ «"'° " baronet fl 0,000 

lar^ny- -^^ ""*'""""' P'"^"""'''" ^J " w<>«lt''y "loney-leoder for 

Jn';:;!' d:£LT:;r.;er' '°^' "•" r'^" "^ the p,aintifr.a„d the 
Lord Chief Ju,tieeCV;id tlut"'!""" "^ "":'"''" '''' '^"^'V' »»'» 
posern aeeount of the tZnl „ ? ""^^ '""' ''"' ^'^"'' "'" "«' '"^^- 

«ivc. a. to afford in orntXeeo;r''' "t" ''? "" " '""^'""''^ "^^ 
thati,, unless tbproT ";"''-°°° °'^-'''° prejudi*and parti^li^f the jury- 
The pluintifl was a man ofc Tk' °' ':"", *'^° P''""*'« '' ITdefcndant. 
member of Parliamrt ™Z) '' ?"°' ""'^ '" °®"«'' ^^'^^' ""'7' ""d « 
ei"lly when dirlT^li: t^.TeZ '? 1" "'^" ^"^"^ ^ '^^' ^^P^' 
quate to £10.000," and a now Ji^ w^"? T ^'^^^^^'^^ ^ «»PPO^), ade- 
Cruchley: 2 Taunt ^7 M « u ;^*t'"''^""''^- ^° ""*'^'»'-' «*'*. H*'^'"" v^ 
iutorfere^'and ay 'w^el' faZ ' ' ''■ •"•' T'' ^-" ^' " "^^^^^'^ <^'«-'» ^^ 
1^'^othatitl l^ILtrXl''™ •'' '"'^'- '''*°™ ^r<.some damages so 
but i„- every ease wle e M.o T "'"Z "^" '""^' ""^"O'U^*" *hom to be so ; 
stauees of tKi t ff Jd ° J f T'^"*'' '"^ "'""^^ S*'"^" »» '^''«' ^i'""™' 
and enter into 1,^^^^^^^^^ ""«* P"* *•»--!- - their situation, ^ 

clmraoter would foi'Jr. .^.^"^ ""° ""^ '••*' ''"^ ""'«»«' •"=»» of 
ti.e parties is thereL ' / P"',^'"'^'^ '",t''« "tuation ? The condition of 

been acasralso bTre tls ' . "';'*/'^'°";^ '">«''' <>^ '«f"«"oe. There has 

the three cases ofVelnl v S 17 ^-"'\«^ <^''-^- I' « '»>« o«-. or rather 

tbe damages were h Id elLv" "h" " ^ ^' ^^ ^••^- P' '''^' ^''«™ 

_Vum,«^_il^t,„rdTi)nr-Mtual damages were asked in those 



l^J 



no 



COURT OF RKVIEW, 1880. 



! 

I,' 



I- 



ting Cum- 






Uan n Ltt-cawH; and wlint wm given w«« hold to bo ^dinpropoTtloned to tlio wronjj done, 
n»ranio „|,ic|, coimlslcd (in tlio wordi of Mr. Juitico Hlron-.') " hi tlio tokinR uwuy of u 

The Mali l'rin-flHhin;;-r(id, und a ii|iglit iiijurj to tho plaiiitin''R thouib in n xtrH^;^!" dcncrib«<l 
by (lio ovldcncu M a more pruotioul Joke, and where noi bin;; like oontiinicly or 
insult won oonipl'tinod of." TIio deOiNion wun j;ivcn under opoclal poworft con- , 
i'crrcdon the Court by the Suporior Court Anicndniunt Act of 18H(). Section -- 
.of tho Hupronio Court Act of IH75 h:id fxprewly denied tin nppoul where iip|iliiM- 
tion for ncwtriiil wun upon matter of disorction only on on tho gruund ihnt lie 
vordiot nas n^.'ain^t the weight of evidenci", iind tho iiincndnient of 18S0 npoidtd 
that and Dubstitutcd tho following : " In all o i!U!n of app^, the Court uiny in its 
diifcrction oi'dcr a new trial, if thu end-" of 'ju>tic(j Kotn to require it, allhoiij:!i 
fQoli now trial niny bo doomed nicoNtiiry U|oii tho ground that tlie vi-rdiot in 
agqinrt tho weight of evidence." Tlint Krction of the Act of^l88H wa< held \<s 
Mr. JuRtioo Strong to give tho Supremo Court tho right tojiilerfcro with « vcr- 
diet on this gropnd of cxocm, und ho »uid : " This Court under tho amendment 
of 1886 18 not now, us it formerly waf, disabled fk-om interfering with n verdict 
on this ground. I read thot section as conferring jurisdiction in all cases where 
tho ends of justioo nioy require it, and not as oonfioed to cases in which thd 
verdict is objected to as Imping against the weight of evidence." In other wofdn, 
the coni<truotion put on tho amendment by tho leurnod judjio wns that it extended 
not only to CliHosof findings ogainsl the wei.:ht of evidence, hut to cu.hoh also of 
csoesHivo damages, if tho ends of justice scom to reqtriro it. That is to say, the 
Supremo Court by tlio amendment is enabled to deal, as this Court docs now, with 
damages whcro they are excessive, and of course under the rules of law which 
are obligatory upon both, and what those rules in themselves are, there can bo 
no doubt, cither under tho law a^ already cited or according to. tho view taken 
by Mr. Justice Strong, for His Lordship expressly refers to Mayno on Dauiuges 
p. 67.3, which repeats the language and quotes tho very oases I have already 
quoted and cited. No doubt tho power is there; it has never been, and never 
can bo relinquishod, where justice is tho object to bo attained aud injustice 
appears to have been done ; but it is a power reserved for gross oftses ; " and^ 
it must appear from the amount of damages ns compared with the facts of the 
case, that the jury nius^ have acted under the influence of undue motives or of 
Erbme gross error and misconception on the subject, and the o^se must be very 
gross and the damages enormous for the Court to interfere." (Mnyne, 573). 
Without going further into c;wes, I may repeat here the summary of opinion ou 
tho subject ^iveo by Graham & Waterman; p. 434, 1 vol. : " Upon the whole, 
it appears that in actions for defamation, although the courts, in every instance 
assert their power, no relief on the mere qucstioA of 'excessive damages, In the 
pre-sent ftate of the prnotice, can reasonably be expected. In tlie vast range of 
the subject, and the numerous applications that have been made, the imagined 
case of an outrageous verdict has scarcely ever ocaurred." Now, in applying 
all this to the damages given in this case, wo see that it is really divided iato 
two tarts, 1. 6,, tliere^ is so iJiueh for the libel iu tho newspaper, then so muck 
for the plea ; and the two together umouuted to 810,000, or about £2,000 ster- 



'■.*■ 



„ , gum 

li''-'. Judged b? Hoinii of §u ' ^' * ' - „ , - « , 

i" -a.c of the K„Kli«h ca«« ; ,' the oo£" T?'"" »"'"'"• "-•""«<» '" ' 

"'- - it certain), i,. both un. cr' h; Knira" "" f ""' ^'"'''" '" '"^^ "-''«'<» ' 

-J-'ht not to forgot or deprcot,to til i ". J^ 1 "^ ?''"' °"'- '»"" '«". ""d if wo 
-Fct due to then, by the p«bne , . T :7,"'^'*"^°'''' in«'i««tlon, and the 

•hamelul act iujputed to him !,» il.i. o^ Ju«tico at the iim^ «thon tho 

- -re not something to bo treuT : t'h " r^;)' ""t" °" f """» -^•»- "« 
•t'« I'M n. the newnpopor, or that in th„T \ l" ""'*""" '» '"Po^t "ow 
I'l-'intirn life, or «llZt uprll „1 l^i^Ti ''"' "^ °'"'°'- «f »''«» be true 
"e would I. wiped fro. InyX « le '^^^^^^^^ ''""« ^^ " «<>-. -a 
»»>• one w.th any self-re^pecl. There eai h! ' '^ "' '' P""'"'"' •^'""We to 
^i'l'cr at the trial or here that thi! lu "** ~nt«ntion, and there waa none 

'■-alu^le and ^n.Z;:^^^^2T' ^""'^ '' -"rounlTwi b 
.l.eart cle^W not ™ean whit it sa'd and whTtK ''""'^ °" *''" P'^'^""" '»>«» 
and u .8 aiKo found unanimously to 'be untLr T." •■"""^ •""* '"'""^ «' »»°'"'« ; 
«f«.ror woyofproeeedingistoput oneself 7';, "?'' '' *-"»« Juric, bui 
one would have done. Sueh . pi IrTlL J ^"^ ' r''^'° "-"^ ""J' "'•»» 
unle« p«parcd to prove every word of it 2 3 rT"^' '■'*"^ '^''^""»8. "d 
to trial at „]!. fiui what happens ? Thl! '^°'^"^"'''«"S''t never to have Rono 
part of their plea. The oulyZZL Iho\ if "'"''j ^' ''' P™'» ""^^ -"^O"' 
F-t of it did not appear; yet uTZty^^'l T'T'' 7'' '"^° P'"*«' -»« 
-y attcnpt to adjourn ani ,ci hi.n'" ^1 71"'''°"' '''"' ""** "''»">»» 
\al.out proof ,nd without W^. effo to . v ''"^ ''"'"''«'' "" "''»? 
defendants' ease was .^ally fiCnf ! f '\ "" '^ '""*"''' «««''«'««. the 

•I'^y could pnly see in ilJ,^JiZ Z^ ' "' "" ""'" «''^»"<"' ^"^ 
o.h unmerited and unatlncd'a^d f;;;ZTr "'"^ ^ 
'■koan attempt at intimidatio . Th y aveX'. T "'"'' ""'''''•"=" ^'^ 
♦futy calls on n,e to say that in mvZi.ilTu^ '^""^ ~' ""/^ ^ »''!«»' -"y 
Pivcn very severe and very 1 elvv Tn '^ . '^ ''"^'' ^°"« "ghtf They have 
ftl.ey.orel„r^rtha:?e'Z,r^^^^^^^^ 
J;r"B.o disturb tl.e« now. InG Jt '7^^^ 

Mansfield said : " I should be sorry to savH ^"'■•*"'^'""' (Cowpcr 230) Lord 
;-' should ever be granted for dal s wii^^^ W^^^ "'r^""' ^'» - »- ' " 
•^"" -'-««<> by malice, partiality or p" '^^^^^^^^ Mohave 

"ut very strong grounds indeed, and s2 a J' " ""' '" ^^ '^""« ''^^'^^■ 

I«"nccinthemlndsofthejury TtisT. ''^ 

"""y foci ehatif they had bl on tie ../ Tu """"'."* ^' *^"*' »^°" '»•« Court 
or where they thinir the jury heVs^v^w^^^^^^ 

MtnecawTeRlo ajury none is n.ore,*„,pha- 



^m. 



08 



COURT^ af^ItEVIEW, 188fl. 



i 



M 



flon. I!. I,r|. ticolly lofl In tlioir tound dinorQtion than nuoh « atn m thU." yWo mutt now 
Hiimiut pn^ ,„ t|,o hflldavlU iitoii'loj tn>»holr pnrlUlitj in tli« Jury. An to tlmt of tlio 
.. TbaMnlJrriii'j'urjrmnn Kobcrtmm, wa hold that it onunoi Us ri<c<)if«dat uli, and' we jfrniit ihu. 
"15?"" *"»*''"> """'« *o rcjooi^t, Art; 428 lij " TUf^ nffidaVit of n Juror m to tho 
rooaoni and luQtivoa which In4ue90«^"him cannot Imj rocolvod in any onu.'." Th« 
articio iit not new low, It tn talfi-n^r^roaaodly fnjin tho old pi^ootlco, and. tlio rute 
• alwny/t woa and i«, Jun wo pointed oui at tlio himnn;;niiiotiy-aa *V\tCi\ liy-Lu^^h nt 

iho p«go quoted iin tko article, not ^liat tlio juryman ia forbidden incnly to 
apeak about.hiruaplf, hut atjout tlic otiiaia alito. " The oiBdavit of a juryni'ui 
can in no case h^ rcoclvod to nhow onjwhat trrounl*>thoy acted, or by wlmf incniii 
I hey arrived at the oonolualon." (TjUMh'n praollee, n. 6.*lfl).. |u aonjo of ili-t 
.^ United Statoa th0 rule has boon nluxed, but in KoitliiU -I' the nci;{ht of iiutli'or 

ity i« agalnat th<i( reception of •uoh aflSlnvitf^ in any cmho asTbolrfj? iijxninHt public 
I^licy." " (Gra. and Wut. v. U, p. 1,430.) '^Iio c:v»o of jurors drawinj* loi>., it 
waa aaid, can only be proved by auoh iHoan*. Porhapa ao. When Itariaea, i»o 
/.will aee whether the n;ile enn bo aafoly rolax^tot. meet auoh a onao aa that. The. 
' rule i^ enforced to prevent a groat evll-itbo tamporinR with_jurojrH. In«|ui«i 
tivonc»s bofuro the vcrdicl and inquinitivoncas. after the vordiot arc thint^i iu 
dun{»erou8 proxliuity, and the mat) who w^ld'attempt the one niight not.be' 
-very delicate about the other. A j6ry should act under the sliicM of eonfldoncc 
and honor. Thi" Is ini«tinctive in nonie countrica wliord that wdo of trial is the 
ordinary one. Hero the trial by jury .in Civil cawrt is rare. Kobvrt^iim's nffi' 
davit theriiforc i» rejected, but of course wo hud to look' at it to «oe tlwt it/Was 
from juror, and that it attBcked the motives of ntlier jurors. As to the affi- 
davits of Mr. Bunting an(|. Mr.' Wallace— the first telatcs to MrT AfcKensio's 
evidence that, it is said, might have been rIvcO or g«t, and to the cfffeot on the" 
. ' jury «f a statement of oounsM tliat high danjagos had hcgn given ii,i dhothet 
'* case. Tlie second refers to the prijudiee supposed to Iravo influenced the French 
"■ Canadian half of the jury. But, after all,^t]»c dufnages were not foupd to be 
cxccssive7)er«e, thera would appear to bean ortd of the cxsej for if justice, in-' 
stead of being otitraged, has Itwert strictly though oven very severely done, why 
go into the motives which have led to a result tliat eannot bo successfully com- 
plained of? If the defendants have received jAjtice it mutters little from whose 
hands or upon whafmotives such a result has proceeded'. Wo are not to set a 
■• Tcfdiet at naught because it is severe. Tjiorofore Wheo we road aflBdavits, or, nt 
all events, one affidavit, tending fSshow, If It'means anything, that some of the 
jury were of Frencli-Can^adian origin^ind ^cre prejudiced a^inst the dcftndants 
.1 on account oT tUeir writings about .Lower Canadian sympathy with the Kiel 
■r^ rebellion, we mny. congratulate purJWlves that, p<?TSonsjaid to have been moved 
' by such feelings should have been able to do justico?"out what i^ really meant 
by Ibis alleged prejudice?. Tliejury were unanimous against the defendants 
^ > and in flavor of the pliiintiflFs ufJon every single questioii in is^ue eicept the ftiere 
amount of damages. On the substantial merits they, every one of them, say that 
the plaintiflf is perfectly right and the defendimts are. entirely w<^ong. Tosay 
. such a prejudice ciistcdin one hnlf of the jury ia one thing, bgt that it should 






•1.-. 






COURT X>V REVIEW, 1880 ' 00 

, J, ' ' " ■■ Y " : ' ' — r ■- ■"■ 

linvf op«ttii(o4 in p«rr«>et harnionjT «^h tlie ju<lgiiie(t( oP iha 'oth«r liatr on all n,>„ k \.m- 
|ifiinl« 011(1 roHriotod itaoir to i mere point of (li4uiii)(ju«, U udt likisljr ;, but, wlietUor ' Hauum 



damiffei found »n not^f Hidt oulragoou^j <ii(WMiv« aknnunt Tlit M»in*rla< 
I, «iow dOM the IJot of prcjudiuo ariao at «H ? We think ""■'^j,,^' • ' 



it wua or not, \f th« da 
tu-JuRtif^ the' mo! loo, 

lh(< »flhiiivit4 do not holfi t(io derundnnt'* onto. An unjuaC, or ahuaivoly eiooaaivo 
verdict might be aocountfd for bji pW'Juilioa ; but how could hii|>rop«r'inolivea 
flccoont for a jant orfc An to the ralue of tiloney.^or Iho value of ohnracJcr. 
uien mny differ. Aa far na wo onn »eo lind Judiro, we aee here a huavy'and ilo- 
^vrvcd n-riliot, No man of rvxpcctubility, OiJuUl bA pS|i>iK>ted to tnku'a pubtio^ 
ctfico of thia impfirianop, if he ix to bo denied nMlroa^ fur auoh a diahonor' aa 
tliin; and no Court oould lend ItHolf, without the iuo|^ini{)oriotta neecaiily, to 
(limlwchin^ ''the aniplcHt nicnruio of redrew iHut (» jury opuld honeatly 
cive, To do ao would bo to bring tho pubiiu wen nliid the inatitutiona 
<.r thia country into^cohtompt ,*• nnd wo nro not prepared w »et th« cxnni- 
|<le. ' Wo must any what wolhink, and wo do not t)ilnk UW thoKo ^^injte^, 
fliough Inrgf, nocosaarily imply 'iaiprop<>r nioti\^i in the jury. Tho^Kro oil 
tlic noinla put befoVc un. Wo i^liould odd, porilupa, thot the' dy^dania appear 
to haVo intended to get tho benefit ^faomo point of miidircotiod, .for they got 
hvive, u^ltir p<'Ouliar circumstaiiW, thfs dny boforo^ho hearing, t(X,j|iake objee- 
tiiiii.i to tho cljiirgp, but there wna nothing wjiatevor urged by eouoMSl-lo austain 
iiuy Huoh objection, or oven to-tucn^ion whut ohjootions were intended to bo rc- 
li'd on. . Tho reaujt of what I have aaid i« tluit the vordiot atunda. Th(} three 
mouona of ^ho dofendantanre (\iMHyHHfid, an^r^ho plulntiif'a motion for juf^gment 
o'l tho verdict and that tera>ject tiioJuryman'H uffidavit arij'grmtted with cimU, 

E.,L(tfhur, attoi;pey for plaintiff. ^ •« 

Y C. A. Geoffriqtu, ooudhbI. ' ' \ ' . ■ 

JifasM^ter, Uut^in»oi^«i! Weir, attorncya for defendcnt. 



\ 



\ 



^ 



coCr dkreVisio:^. 

UCINTREAL, 31 MARS 1880. 



Coram T(>RaANCE, Boujtocois, ct Matiiieu; J.J. 



DAME OEUROIANA DUPUI3 «<»!>., 

nKMAM DBRaRsa ; 

VB. , ^-• 

FfiLrX RIEUTORD, " . 

' , . DirBMDIDB." 



Jnit ; 



-Qu'en principe U noTaire, daai la r6daction des acte3 do son ministire, eit sp6- 
%. ^ cialcment cLarguj^'ubBertrer leg formalitus prescritea pour, leur validltu, 

'' el que lea nuUitus prorooantdea vicg^e'furine lui sont Imputabldt' 

Lns faiU do la causo^nt ex posted dans le jugemeut do la Cour Sup^riourQ 
(Jett^J.). En voioi lo tezte : > ■ ,^^ __ , 

. La oour,:apVds avoir entcndu la^pluidoirio odntrndiotoire dea avocata des 
parties sur le fond du proems mu .ontrc elles, pris conna^mtnce cles ^critures des 
ditcs f artiea poui:. riustruction doleur cause, cxumind^urs pii^ces ot productions 
respcctivcs, etitcndu et dQnient consid^Sr^ la prcuve, et ddiib^r^ ; 



#iV - .S SgiSrg^p^-v- 



■ /■ 






- • % 



T? 



![*>■ * 



) 



)•< 



.t " 



"iv™ prop*. J -rii i7;tir;L:::,f "'" "'"" "" ■" ''°""'»»' ° 
'0 f c.„«., .„„H /jir^r ,,x.t sir r'"''- ' '* '■>' '- 

r ^^ viror, asSOQ;- » ' *^" '^^''^^ '^^ «« ""^^^^ «« «orait (?lcvde d uno somme d'cn- 

AttendiMJu'il est do plus dt«bli que la oullitd do !•..» 
•prononcde d raison de la stinnlaH-nn " """"*^ •^<' ' "C'c en question a dte 

den,a„dercssc donata re s'obS^^^^^^ '""'''' ^ "' ?"^^''' ?" '«1»«»« »« 

' du Code Civil, do plrSLrf ?""';' ' '" ^"P^''*'"" ''^ ''«'''««'« ^81 

nature, „i ^^^ru^il/:: J^j^l^^ ' '' '""'""^' """^^^P"™" '* 

«o.t^i::tsfi:iit^i2:t::^.:t^^^-^^^ 

fossionn'elle, avaie t JZlZ/ \ T^^''"'''' "^"'« «" '«" q"""*^ PrP- 
leeture et IW apprruvT '■''^''•""*"' '^^ ''"^'«' «» «»» «ten<Ju la 

rddij:.?e ; «'puiaUon fut dans les termes dans lesqucls clle a dte 

dantqu'dufte fuiualite inrrinJ "^ P^-'*""" P'^^''"'', °e se rapporte cepen- 



;W 



^"otiu i o unmi s a r<ifeptmaubtltte7- 



•v,' 



ii:ll. 



r- 



^^: 



COUR DE REVISION, 188G. 



101 



ConsidtSrant ipio Id HOtairo ettit par auita tenu Jo connaitro lu dispoaitioh du Dame O. Da- 
dit artiolo 784, ct do s'y confoi'incr en reJigeuut lu donation susditc, et qu'cn ^"'\.g 
iiist'rant au coutruiro au dit acta unw clauso abwlutucnt oppo-^o ii un toxic F- wieutord. 
aussi f'ormel, il a coniiuiH una fautc grave ; ' - 

Consid^rant nt^'anmoins qu'il est do jurisprudence en pareillc niatiiie que ks 
donimages sont nccord<59 plHtot oonluic peine quo coiuuio indeniriito ; qu'il 
Hpparticnt au tribunal do Ics mitigcr d'apvds les circonftanecs paiticiili^tes du 
f:iS, ct que duns I'espice uno souuic de $H)0 parait suffiaantc ; 

Iicnvoie leivexccption et d(5fensc -du, defcndeur et le condauinc ^ payor « la 
denianderesse la somuio de 6400 couruut avcc intdruts sur iocjUo du ICV fOvvier ^ 
1834, jour do Tassigniation ct los frais do I'aetion tello qu'iwtcat^o^ distrait? a 
Maitics PrdfontainejJt Lafoutaino, avocuts dcs dcmandeurs. 

La Cour de R6vision confinua cc jugonient purcmout et RimpLnicnt. 

'.■,'':•■ , Jugcmcut coufiiux'. ^^ 

f,Pdfontaiii^ et Lafontaiig^kixAii dc la dcmanderessc. 
' jBe'i'jwe, JI/cG'tfHH e< iJ'wa^T^Vjgtfa^s du dcmandcur. 



COURT pF QUET3N'S BENCH. 
, Appeal Side. 

MONTREAL, 9tu DECEMBER, 18G4. 

Coram DovAL, Aylwin, Meredith, Mondelet, J.J. " 

BERNARD DEVLiy,' > 

{D^endnnt in thi Court belou\) ^ 



AND 






JEAN JACQUES EVARISTE BIBEAU, 

{Plaintiff in the Court b^elou',y 



R^SPOKOBNT. 



Attorney ad litem — Liability fur Binliff'sfees. The attorney and client jotntly 

and severally responsible. 
The action in the Court below was one b^joujrht by the cessionnaire of a- 
bailiff to recover £33 Ss 6d., a balance of Ballrfi^b' fees on a Saisic-ArrSt avnnt 
Jugement, a Fi. Fa. and an alias Fi. Fa. in a case of HacDoncll and Mullin!'. 
'the action was brought against Mr. MaoDonell the plaintiff and Mr. Devlin his 
?|ttorney, jointly and severally (Boston and Taylor, 1 L. C. Juri.st. p. 60.) 
^ HeffiB is the judgment of the Coust below (Loranger, J.), on 31#t Dec, 1863: 
:— " La Obur apris avoir cntcndu les parties par Icurs i^ocats, en droit sur la 
r^nse en droit produito par le dcmandeur ik I'encontre du plaidoyer fait par 
Ic ddfendeur Devlin, au merite de cette cuUse, et sur la motion du demandeur 
du onze ddcembro courant, que le tdmoignnge produit par les ddfendeurs poi^r 
prouver une convention entre Garrick et Brogan, et pour montrer que Garriok a 
fait dea 8urchage!>, soit rejetd commeayant 6t6- ill<5galenierit ndmi!<, avoir exami- 
ne la procedure, pieces ph)duite8, ct preuve et avoir siir le tou^ diHibdr^ ; consi- 
' ddrant que les faits invoquda par le dit ddfendeur Devlin, s'ils dtaient vrais ainsi 
qu'enonciSs seraient suffisants en loi pour maintenir^s conclusions du dit plai- 
doyer a rejete et rejette la dite rdponse en droit; et considdrant que le tdiuoi- 



' gnage attaqu^ par le dite motion du ddfendeur est inadmissible en loi, a mainf^ 
nu et mainticnt le dite motion, rejette en consequence ce tdmoignage ; et considd- 



.■*.; 



102 



COURT OF QUEENS BENCIf. 1864. 



B. Devlin 
J.J 



M 



^ifi 



m -'■ 



and " [""' ?"'*' ^'' ^'''^" P'' '" Preuve fiiite on cetto causa quo baidO.rri^lr „« i 

u uoienucur li.rnar.] Jbvlin, c^cu.cr, on su qualitd do Procurour do l'ttutr« 
et putlic V ""' ^::*I-Do„ellet «u profit des Lux la sai.io. ^1 oul a " 

e.ecuu5 u,. brcf do .ai.sio.nfi. ou „r i silt* d .a. ' ^"'^^'''''^ '^ ''"•-'- 

,rou.u.od„ di. Ma„i>o..oi, CO.. jL:::^,:nr„z^s:du^:: 

Mulhns; qu U a de.„0.„e o.eou,^ Ic brcf do JlcnMia. de Louis et ZllashZ 

do ^utre on f;a.i-,nt los rccollcnic.ts ot av^s e/ publloations ndeossaires ct aue ses 
.ct ,noIu.„c„ts «ur ses trois bref. eU%«iso„;:de lour .x JZ'n sTsou 
e v<5.aia so,„.„edo quatrc-vingt-douzo livros, huit chelias et dotKn ors 
qu . appcrt ^0 plus qu'il a p .yd de so., propres deoi.rs aA gr.ffe do a dite CoJ^^ 
Supdrioure au Bureau du shdrif la somme d'uae livre, neuf cheliotot si. 

.5:;^:.';!:^i;^o.S:; ;:.t; -r-^^ ^^^"^^^' '-'' '- ^--' ^"«*- ^ 

" Gonsiddraiit qu'cn loi les ddfendours fttiionf »t o * ' •• 

dtfondeur DevliD, en scs J^fcnsos on wrtn do laQMlle G.rr«4 ,. 1, f i 

gaadcaient p»r.,gcr lcaf»faotemol„,nc„,.dTd o3.n wT?^''" 

... .u da B,o,„, p,,.„.e„. x^rcrJJ,::^:^^:™ 

Consid«r«nl qae |ps moj'OM et diifenscs invoquiSs oar lo dit I>a.li„ ■ i- . 
,.« par ledhMa.D„„.,,.,..„,„ ,,,,„,„„„„.' 1,^^«^' »^^^^^^^ 
o» fait, a d^bouc! ct d^boute Ics dit dWendeur, dc le,L dT.« If 
da.u,c ,03 dU d«ndo„„ c„„J„i„,„n.cnt ct iMtlr. ^y tT^X" 
Cflssionnaire du d t Garriftk nap «* nn ..„ « j. , "'^ uuuiiuanaeur 

«%br. „a Unit Itt^laTtLt: CdtrntTtr 'p'""""" '" *"'^ 

^. Z>et;/i/i, for the appellant. *Appcal dismissed. 

—^tlfimmh tiamara, 1 X)t iU rojpo nl.nt. ■ 




pCmtlT*X)F QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



loa 



^<JOURT OP QUEENS BENCHi 1885. 
(appeal side.) \ 

/ MONtRBAL, 318T DEOEIIBER, IBsi^. . 

/ Coram Do.RioN, C.-J., Monk, Eamsay, Cross and Baby, JJ. 
■ t'HARLES NORTHWOOD BT aI, 

(I'laiHtiff in tht Court below), 
^^^ \ Appellants i 



ALEX. BORROVVMAN 

{Defendant in the Court below), 

_ ' ■-. ' \ Respondent. 

JJeUuj 111 delivery of toheut— Reasonable diUnJ^ \ 

.The judgment appealed from (JETTfi, J.) rcad.s as follows : \ _ 
La Cour, aprfis avoir cntcndu la plaidoirie coi.tnulictoire (ies avocats de» 
parties sur le fond du proces mu entre clle.«., pris connaissance des dcritures dcs 
dites pajfties pour I'instruction de leur cause, exaiin^ leurs pieces et productions 
respcetivef., entendu et dftment consid^id la preuve, et sur Ic tout e|61ib^r«J • 

Attendu'que Ies demandeurs reclament du ddfendcur la somme de douzo 
ccnt-^ro.8 piastres et cinq centins, ^tant la perte par cux subio sur la rcvente 
d une cargaison de l.uit millc neuf cent dix-neuf'^ minots do m vendu au 
ddfendour, en juillet mil huit cent qUiUre-vingt-deur, a r^ison de une piastro- 
et trente-«x centins le minot, maisdontfe ddfendeur a ensuitc refus^^o prendre 
livrai.son ct que Ies demandeurs ontfalt^vendre i se^risque.s, ne r«5aVisunt que, 
une piastre et vingt-deux centins et demi W, minot, et occasionnant en conse- 
quence la perte totale susdite, maintenant r«clauiea : \ • 

Atte^u: que Ies demandeurs aliiguent jspdcialerrent que ;par le\co..irafc 
entre 1^ parties, pass^ le six juillet mil hbit cent quatPo vingt^deux, i etait 
.^.puld que le grain veadu dcvait etre exp^dk |ar voilier, de Chatham, dUs la 
rrovmce d Ontario, a Montreal, et ce aussitot qu'un vaisseau EglJ^Sliit£tre afrrdtd 
que lors de ce contrat le ddfendeur conptfissai^ le pert ^e e%jia6i' et savait qu'il 
y alluit pcu de voiliers, surtout de la 8a>ac.td requise eW^biC^^ciroonstance: que 
Ies demandeurs out expMie ce grain avcc toute la diligence voulue, etque le 
tjuiDM aoat ils I'ont offcrt au defendeur qui I'a refuse sans raison plausible : 

Attendu que le defendeur a constat^ cotte demande disant: que d'aprds 
le contiat invoq,,^ et suivant la coutume du port de Montreal, en tels cas Ics 
demandeurs devaient chnrger ct expddlgr la m.rchandi* vendue sous un d^lai 
tie cmq jours ; qu'ils auraieot pu so procurer un navuife dans ce ddlai et que le 
gram serait alors arriv^ A Montreal ve,-s le vingt juWef, mais que par la fuute et 
nefc'l.gence dcs demnndeurs il n'ost arrive que le quinze aoftt, et qu'aprds un 
retard SI considerable le defondou\ e'tait bien fond^ a refuser do prendre livraison ' 
(le la ditc marchandi.se; u /- 

^Attendu qu'il ressort de la. preuve au dossier que Ies demandeurs paraissenfe 
avoir fait de pron.ptcs d<5marclies, pou^se procurer un navirc, aussltSt que 
contrat fut pass,?, ils n'ont cependant conclu que le vingt-pt-un juillet avec Ies 
proprietaircs de " l'Ariad )> ^ " ct que le chnr g cm ent dfl In nytrchandi. ^ ^ n> . Utr^ 



~^J 



\ 
\ \ 



\i 



% 



fait que le premier aoflt 




-r" 



■■■'•■ 



104 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BUxNCff, 1885. 



Attcndu qu'il est do plu« prouv<5, , imOuio par lea "ttfrnoinft dcs domanJcurs 



</. Nortbwood 

and ni'il "urait 6l6 possible i. cc8 dcruiora do so procurer un naviro plus promptciuciit 

^' 5m!"'" ''" ''"^""' ""''■■"' P'"« ^'''^'^' ''^ 1»''' '•^8"l«e do la prcnivodo la d^'foimo qu'il^t'tait 
iriGnlo facile, vtt la quantitd do navircs chorohant oniploi ioo't l^pnque, do Vi)i. 
nfwurcr un do la oa'pacjtd vouluq, du six au quince juillot, ct par suite d'expedicr 
III inarchandisc •duns un ddlai boaucoup pioins Ion" • 

Attcndu qu'il est do plus c<tabli par noiubro' d'uffrt^tours et d'cxp<?ditouM 
• do grains uiCmc do ceux examines au souticn do la dtMnande, quo lo r'ctard des 
dcuiandours, dans la circonstancc, est tout-i-fait hors dos usages du commerce ; 
. • Considijrant quo bicff que par.Ies tcrmcs du contrat ci.tro les parties il n'ait 
ot<5' fixd aucun dt'lai certain et ddtcrmind pour I'oxpddition do la marcliandi.-.' 
vendue les mots y iuserjJs ; aussitot qu'il sera possible do so procurer un naviro 
(as loan as vessel can be secured,) doivent nuanmoins s'entendro et s'intcrrroter , 
comme n'accordant aux vcndcurs qu'un dt'lai raisonnablo, d'apris les usages du 
commerce, en pareil cas.otquo cos usages condamnont le retard des demandcurs 
dans I'espico ot justificut au, cohtraire lo refus du ddfondeur, d'accoptcr la 
livraison susdito do la dito marohandiso ; ''' 

Maintient les txccptions ct d(5fbnso du dofondour, ddolaro I'offre fait par les 
demandcurs do la uiarch:mdisc vendue lo quinzo aoat mil huit cent quatre-vingt- 
dcux, nisuffisanco ct„ traduirc aux termes du contrat invoqud et en consequence 
renvoio ct diSboute Paction des demandcurs avco d^pens xlistraits H Maitres Kerr 
& Carter, avocats du dofondour, rtS-scrvant i cc dernier tout recours quo de droit 
siiivant ses conclusions.' 

TBo respondent submits that the judgment from wi.icli the present appear is 
, taken la well founded, Tbr the following reasons:— '^ 

■ 1. Because the appellants have failed to prove that the wheat tendered Ly 

them to respondent was according to the contract, like pr evious samplfi. 
2. Because time ^as of the essence of the contract, and the tender of delivery 
. of the wheat, on the 19th August, 1882, was too late, and was unreasonable. 
In support of the second reason, the respondent respectfully urges— that the 
words of the contract, "as soon as vkssel can be secured," are similar to and 
have the same meaning as the words*" as soon as possible," and that tho said- 
wording of the contract meant that the delivery of the wheat was to bo made 
-„_jmlua^eaaQnablo delay,^and that the appellants were bound, and by their 
contract undertook to make such delivery within the shortest. practicable time.' 
Benjamin on Sales, 3rd Edition, pages 678-679. 
. HydrauIicBnginecring Co. and McFIaffie L. R, 4 Q. B. D., pa^'c 670 
.Cross, J.-Un the 6th of July, 1882, Messrs. Northwood and Stringer, of 
Chatham, in Ontario, through their brokers at Montreal, A. D. Thomson & Co 
sold to Messrs. Borrowman & Co. a cargo of red^intcr wheat, from ei-dit to 



■*j 



ten thousand bushels, like previous samples, at^6l.36 per bushel of 60 lbs., 

• delivered here at Montreal, wheat to be shipped by sail as soon aa vessel can be 

,C ,, . secured. The cargo,, consisting of about 9,000 buslieis, arrived at the port of 

Montreal from Kingston in the bar-o Kinghorn on the 15th August, Borrovj- 

man & Co. being notified. It was formallJF tendered to Borrowman & Co. on 






COURT OF, QUEEN'S BK^CH, 



A 



105 



man. 



the 17.h August by notarial tender and protest, wbich W««pwtedon the 19th r v„,.k ^ 

l^, n..d brought thcr actio, for the da„,„gc» sustained, on .he gVound that .he A b'JUow ' 
^der wa, too htc. It was shipped fVon. Chatham on the iHfpf August (V 

. the - ,.t July. It doc8 not appear .hat any extraordinary dchiv occurred in 
cr^dmng the cargo .rter the charter of the Ariadne. cLhanlC i"l 
port on he R.vor Thame^. As a vessel n. only procured at TorontoNit Jad 
to pa. Mjence through th.^ Welland canai; through Lake« Erie .„d S Clai Ld 

but :Jn "T" *' '''f '""' "'''^'^ '^""•'^ ^^^^ --Py "bout fi e d.^ 
T doi 1 ^"" "cco^P -'.ed in a shorter .i.e if .^ -.iel had been towed 

J ndZ TT ''/';'''"' r "'' "' ^'^ ''"'^ °^"P'^^ - unreasoWblo-: 
...no, ..nd f om Kingston to Montreal it was performed ft. about the usual tlmb ' 

buppcm, the voyage to have been possible in a day or Jwo l-.s. it cannot J^ 

r^s^/r r"'T"j ""'•''•""^- ^«'o the tim^ occupied iu«.cuiS 
a e^so , fifteen day.., the delay i« more questionable. The contract is one i^ 
which tune .s of ..s essence, in which, if the subject of the contract is not forth 

lumsolf put the case ^.th e5trfima.4-airnm,-Tfnrrn-s^^ the question as 

tirt '"='"" ^ur""« ''''''''''"'' ^•'"*'«' wheJ,er the arrival f 
the wheat was ,n reasonable t.n,e within the terms of the contract. Respondent 

yon red, five dys are al owed for the seller to engage a vessel u-hen the eon..aet 

. s f r prompt delivery. Appellant contends tha> no such custom could be appli 

nble .0 an .niand port like Chatham, and that/he contract was not for prompt 

dchve.y. The custom, if fully established, c/nnot be Said to ba unreaso able 

The sale be.ng made at Montreal, wh.re such custom is allied to preva 1 h 

my be presumed that the seller took upon himself the risk of bhatham'bein'. a 

port where the difficulty of obtaining a vessel was more than usual Altho;.h 

he contract .s not for delivery on a particular day, nor in term for pt.";, 

A gooOeal of d.I^ence is shown on the part of the seller; he put the ma ; 

nke. Th.8 agent, Mr. Jones, swears to diligence on his part. It is noticeable 
hat e does not produce the answers to nai of the applications he made aod 
.not untjl the l..h of July that the sellers themselves seriously undert ke the 
# r. Tlnsis-sbown by their telegrams, and afthough Toronto is a li tie out 

1?' :^^ '^ ^- t' -.^'-'---j' -»y be -id a good deal out ^Z 
yay-jet iM* a pnucipal port in Ontario L engaging vessels, and should have 
be^^n resorted to so .oon as difficulty was elperienced in getting a vessTl at r. 
.tro.t. The appheat.on to Toronto resulted in the engagement. with reas^naWe - 
prompftude of .ho .ehooner Ariadne to cafry the wheat to Kingston Td it - 
.o.W.ly proved by .he appellants 'th.t sailin, vessels were" ^^^ 
able at Toronto between the 6th and 21st " ' 







V,' 



106 



COURT OP QUEExYS BENCH, 1885. 



D. Northwocd bci,jg a litilo liberal a» to tl.o Vatc of freight. It would not havo been fair to 
and" ''"'<^ required thorn to pay an unrcaHonablo ratfl, but they might at all events 
u ,,.,,.^ J. flp^^^j ^ ,j,^^.^^, ^^^^ j^ .^ true they. telegruphvsd to their brokers at Mon- 

treal, on the 15th July, to enquire iRa propellW, would do. It ia not shown 
whether at tha^ time the question was di-stinctly put to the buyers whether they 
would accept from a propeller, but it seems certain that when the oalo note wus 
passed the bjlyors in.sistc4 on a sailing vessel. They may havo had good reasons 
., lor k, and a^t all cvcnt.<jvthcy had a right to insist on their contract. -The ques- 
tion comes/ finally to be whether an unreasonable delay occurred in procuring a 
vessel to/carry the wheat. In the appreciation of the judge of the Superior 
iourt Uio delay was unreasonable. We think that the weight of evidence :.t 
least ti^nds that way, and wo feel that we cannot reasonably reverse the finding 
of tM learned judge on that evidence. The judgment will, therefore, bo con° 
firnied. It has the semblance of being a hardship to the appellants, but, on the 
o^er hand, it is remarked that this kind of commerce could not be carried on 
yinlessthc conditions of such bargains could be enforced with some degree of 
<^trictness. 




1 



\L. N, Benjamin, attorney for appellants. 

^err, Carter d- Goldstein, attorneys for respondent. 

\ I . 



Judgment confirmed. 



^ COURT OF QUEENS BENCH. 

\ ' MONTRE.\L, JANUARY 25th, 1886. 

frcscut DoRioN, C. J., Ea-msaV, Caoss, Tessier and Baby, JJ. 
THE CITY AND DISTRICT SA VINOS BANK 

(Df/endant in the Court Mow), 
Appellant ; 



AND 



cMt 



\ 



THE JACQUES CARTIER BANK 

(P^intif in the cMt below), 

j 4 Dkfbndant. 



Hkld :— That when the cashier of a bank has entered iato tranaap hens, even in his own 
name, which- are within the ordinary scope of the duties of such cashier, the 
bank is bound by such transactions. \ 

2nd. That where the directors of a bank allow an officer of the same to conduct 
its affaii;s as he sees fit, without reference to them, they render the bank liable 
for his acts, which they are presumed to have authorized, an4 a plea that thev 
were ignorant of such acts will not be admitted-^ / j 

3rd. That wher^ such directors permit a pertod of one real to elapse after they 
have obtained knowledge of an unauthorized act of arispfflter of such bank, 
before they repudiate such act, they are presumed to have acquiesce^ in it, and 
cannot repudiate it after the lapse of fu^ period of time. 
This was nn action by the Jacques Cartier Bank' to recover from the City 
and District Savings Bank an amount of $13,^88.44. A balance on securities 
deposited with and collected by them. 

The Savings Bank admitted an amount of $15,317.02, which they deposited, 
nnd denied any f ur th e r sum b ei ug^4uo by them.* Thfe Jucotics Cartier Bank — 



^ 



i 



COURT 0^ QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



_^' * 5T»J- ' 



101 



contendod tjint a loun of $25,000 charged to them wfc, un«uthoriied. fheTho City »d 

i»»uo wnB confined to the bulanco that would bo duo on this loan if authoriiod ^'■'^''''^ ^ 

and the parties by admissions filed in the case a-reod on the exact ani<Aint to b^ and 

awarded in case it should be dbci.icd thnt tlie Jucquc* Cartior Bank was liable Jitlwirk 

for this loan. In the Superior Court Mr. Justice Mathicu gave judgment for 

the pla.nt.ff for the full amount claimed, and from this judgment the prosobt 

appeal was taken. . 

' The appellants contended that throughout the whole transaction Cottd had 
particularly represented that, although acting in his own name,' the loan he was 
endeavonng to make was for the Jucquos Curtier Bank, and that by this act ho. 
necessarily bound the suid Bank, being at the timo a recognized officer of the 
same. . ' ,. . ■ 

On this point, the obligations of a corporation for the acts of its employbes 
towards third persons who have contracted with them in good faith, the appcl- ' 
lants cited at length the following autliorities : 

Minor & al Vs. The Mechanics Barik of Alexandria. 

1 Peters Eeports, page 70. n 

The ordinary u^age and practice of a bank, ia »he absence of a counter-proof, 
must bo supposed to result from the regulations presented by the Board of Dir- 
ectors ; to whom, tho charter and by-i#W8, submit thtf gfeftdral management of ' 
the bank and the control and direotipn of its offio<?rs. It would bo not only 
inconvenient, but perUous, for the customers, or any other persons dealing with 
the bank, to transact their business with the officers upon any other presump- 
tion. Tlie officers of the b^ak are held out to the public as having authority to 
act, according to the general usagcj practice and course of their business; and 
their acts within^ho'loope of such usage, practice and course of blisiocBS Wolild 
in general bind the bank.in favor of third-person poiTcssing no other know- 
ledge. ■ In the case of the banlfSTtbo United States vs. Dandridge (12 Wheat • 
C4) the subject ^as under the consideration of this Court, and ciroumstancei 

far less bogeiit than the pr^kent to found a presumption of the official acts of the 
board were ye^,deemed-*ufficient to jubtjify their being laid before the jury to 
raise such a presumption. If, therefore, Alj u^gp and practice alluded to in the 
instruction were within the legitimate aut^fority of the board, and stfh as its 
written vote might justify, there would be no question, in this Court, (hat it 
ought to have been given. 

See also Barnes vs. Ontario Bank— 19 New York Reports— Court of Appeals 
Smith 6, page 152. ft- > 

, Hcarn vs. ^'icholls-r^Salkeld'sReport, I, Vol. I, p8gB289. ' , 

In an action on the case for a Deceit, the plainUff set°forth : " That he bought 

" several parcels of silk for..., silk, whereas it was another kind of silk, 

and that the d«Jfendai.t, well knowing this deceit, sold it to him for silk • ^ 

" Id trial, upon not gnilty, it appeared that there wiw^no actual deceit id the 
^ defendant who was the merchant, bat that it was in his factory beyond sea, and 
' the doubt was, if this drcoit cowl jj;harg o the mci n bant^ awl Ht^lp- J^ was 



"of opinion th4th[e merchant was answerable forliV|.ftctor, though 'not chimin- 



-i • 



: . ..' - » 



108 



COURT OP QUEENS nKNCir. 1880. 



ill- 






I"^' 



i 



^ 



"DhS'^r.;; '*''■"•'• J^«*' '''f ""•. /or 'feing ,nuu bodi, ^unt be a lo,rr l,y fh> deceit it u 

cJi^'Xr. gouZi; '" * '"'^ ''"" """'^' ^■" -"^ "f^" ^"'- -rinion the p.aintifl 

' 'V MorcUanJ. ^..nj v«. St.to Bn.k-lO WMlnco Roport,, pngo 004-G05. 

Lnnll ^''"^T^ ""''"" ''"^''"""^ "^•'■^''"'^ »'y » <'"^''i«r of a bank with its 

po.cr«. prov..lcd ,..»«t they bo «uch «« th« director, o the ba r m y witi o" 
violation of ita Charter, confer on such ca«^,ier. «y ^' 

■ ni'"'" '^^''T'''"""'*'''"''J^'''''''«''R«"'''''«'^t'> bo inferred by tho public from 
J^wer, usually cxerd^^^ 

V. Zor ' ' "•'^ «"f^>-'-' ro-rs though applied to a new 'subject 

jJrd. Thu., if i„ the cse of ,n bank having power by its charter to buv nn.l 
of tho bank, de,.lt w.th the publienns authorized to buy n„d aell exchange I, 

■ ^^:^] "■;' r" t "'" ^"^^ -^^"^ »« ^« ^'^^^ ^'-e co„for :- :y : 

same cl,.u,o of el,art.^r) may be inferred by a jury 

credit'of Lis'Lllk'f r '" ''"'''" *' ••"'" '"•^"^""^ ^^''^'^'^ '" -"»i"S the 

In. S ?l; .■ fT '" 7''''''' ""' "• P"" !■•'• l"" »«4 .»d ^ 



finflit^ja^.con«d«.«d as the executive officer tBrou«'h 



a,~ „3i" — r — ---—--» — — w.w«.«r«u US tne ezecative offi 
whom and by whom the whole moneyed transactions of the bank, i 



in paying or 



"\; 



•x- 



COURT 0? QUEEN'S BENCH, 1880. 



100 



rooolviriK dcbtii, anil (li«oh«r«ii,« or lr.in,forrinK MourltioH, oro to bo conducted. Tl.« Oily »<! 
Jt doo« not iooai, thorcrorc, too much to inf.r, iu tlio ab^ouco of all fmiiitivo and "l'*"7, "?* 
kaonrn rMtrictionn, tl.ut l.o ,K)««iM«e« tl.o incident..! uj.tl.ority. nnd, indeed, (h,tit W 
it hii dutj to apply tho n«-oti;.l.lo fund., „h well an tl.o moneyed Ciipital of tlio JX^rT^k 
bank to diiwharKo iu debu and obliKution.. Ilonco it socm» to be a naturnl 
conclusion, tluit jnima /aae, tlio cobl.ior of a bunk po8«c8»cs tho Incidental 
Huthority to indorse ti.o ucgbcii.blo Btcuritit-H held by tho bank, in order to 
KupjJy tho wunt. and to promote tho intorcMs of tho bunk ; ond any ie«trietiou 
upon Buch authority muHt bo estubliBhod by competent proofs and will not bc pro- 
Kunicd to cxi^t. 

Soo nlHO case of Matthews ,v«. N(Uion.nl Bank, stated at length in Ninth Edi- 
tion of Story on Ajjenoy^ — QOto loco citato. 

In this case tlie fuctH were an follows: a stock coitiOcato originally for two 
.l.arcH of stock in tho nome of C, which had been by him fraudulently altered 
Ro as to purport to bo for two hundred shares in the name of a certain b^nk as 
collateral, was received in good fuith by tho bank from C, a» collateral security 
for a loan to him on payment of tho loan by C, tho cashier of tho bank as 
such, signed a transfer iu blank upon tho back of the certifloato, and delivLrod 
It to C, Afterwards the plaintiff in good faith received thps.ime ccrtifioato from 
C. as collateral security (ova loan then made to him. Ti.o plaintiff*.-, loan was 
not paid. 

In delivering his opinion, SHbplev, J., said : '• Tho defendont denies that the 
oii^lucr had authority or right to bind the.^bank by tho «ontract declared on 
Cashiers of a b^nk are held out to tho public os having authority to act 
aocrding to the {nm«r^ usage, practice and course of business conducted by tho 
bank. Their ac/s, within ,the scope of »uch usage, practice, and course of busi 
ncss, will in general bind the bunk in favor of third persons possessing no other 
knowledge. One of the ordinary and well-known duties of the cashier. of* bank 
IS tho surrender of notes and securities upon payment ; and his signature Jo tho 
niccsMry transfers of securities or collaterals, when in the form of bills of 
exchange, ohoscs in action,^«tock certificates, or.similar soouritics for loans, which 
aro personal property, is an'act within the tcope of the general usage, practice 
atfd course of business in which cashiers of a bank arc held out to the public as 
having authority to act. Undoubtedly the ordinary duties of a cashier do not 
comprehend the making of a contract which involves the payment of money 
without an express authority from the directors, unless it be such »• relates to 
the usual and customary transactions of the bank. But the transfer of certifi- 
cates of stock held Hi collateral is certainly one of the usual and customaiy 
transactions of banks, and the public would be no more likely to require evideace 
of a special authority to the cashier to make such transfer, than of a special 
authority to draw checks on otKer bapks, or to perform any other of tbeAiflv 
duties of his oflBce. . ' t 

" The signature of the casjuer must therefore be considered as the signature of 
''•°' *"•"'' —• ' "-- y iti iii iiiii ^fail iiiil Ill ]| 



the certificate by the bank bet b«Ri warranty of tb^ufneness of the oertifi 



",^-\- 



r 



11^ 



COURT OP QUEKN'.S BENCH, 1886. 



"-3- 



'm,!,llH:.'T **"* J'r ^"".^ '• •"'"T'''^'" -"'"« "?*''• f''8"y " • <«•''«««. I- 

TiiiKtH.nk 'no COM Of forgod ncgotiublo iuRtrunidnU it ia well netilml Uiat th« indorMr 

h.U%n., ''"'^"'' '*•"* *•'" '"•^^""••"'t ♦••clf-nJ H.« .Dt«Mdo«t.ign.taro« tlaereon arc 
CHflitr tilink gnimiDO." 

rruicr-Maitcr & Servant, pugct 141, 144, 14S, 148, and IflS. - 
Wood-Mo.tor & 8orvaD», page. BOl, 502 «t 604, nnd K>cHoa« 2»J0, 261 ml 
264. 

^lorio on BankH and Banking, nocondo Edition, & la p,igo 7T it U •uiyuten 
d<?vcloppo 1«. pouvoirn, dcvoim ot re«ponMbilil,S« de« offioion, etc., d'uno mnni,ir« 
il lucido que Ton no pout ■'enip«ober d'ncooptcr touto iia doctrine. 
A li^ page 78, nprAa avoir eipiiqud lea principca, il dit : 
TRe LuHiuo:>a of un incorpornled bank can, of courio, bo couJuctcd only 
by »^cnt. of the corporalion, or, as they ore. commonly atvlcd, officers of the 
bank 

So, nil acta done' by nn agent with the c«cntiol prqvi*) tliat they bo done offi- 
cinlly, nnd tl.cy f..ll within the t-copc of his lowers nnd duties, are in Inw ih.> 
0CJ8 of the cor;«,rution itnclf. ^yi,c^hcr these bo rightful or Vronir, innocent 
third partun have the right to regard them in thia light, nnd the law will thu.i 

conatrue thou ,..,. 

A la pnpo 80, il continue : 
_ Where a bank officer, for the purpose of co.ncoaling n doficlency in the assets 
• of the bank, caused by hia own crime or default, procures flfaudulontly the money 
of another person, nnd mingloa it with the funds of the bank, thereby making > 
those funds appear to bo full and sufficient, the title (o the money thu, obtained 
doe» not pas, to the bank, but the money may bo rcoovorcd back in a suit 
brought against tho bank by the person who really owns it, nnd has bcou 
defitauded of it, though thp frnujl wna not practiced on him directly by tho bank 
officer, but by some person in eoJIuHion with tho bank officer. The knowledge of 
the officer is the knowledge of the bank and aB-octs tho bank.- jfoither doea the 
rulo^that, if a person pays his indebtedness/with money fraudulcttly obtained it 
is nevertheless a good payment, and may(io retained by the xjreditbr, opply in 
such a o;:»e; for the bank officer does noit pay a debt to tho" b^ak, which he 
owes to it, by means of this money, but iimjjdu^inglet the money with the/undt 

of tho bank as if it were the property of the^bank 

^ Any person who deals innocently with ^le agent or officer of a corporation 

withm the scope of that agent's or officer'aVunctions will be protected,.and wil! 

have his contract enforced by law ..\ . 

Plusloin 4 la pugeSl, il dit: , ' * 

In such oa8«8 tho sipi'ple question is whether or not tho third party dealing, 
with the agent had-a right Jojvippose that the agent, was dealing within the 
^ tr scope of his authority 

. Le...i)j|£mo autour, j^ la page 89, continue : 
, If an officer is octhig, ppeakiffg, or receiving information in matters which 

the ordinary ^sagoj)? the backing business cast within the range of hi< fanp. 

r Ue na , the b a gk in S ound aud effected tac r cBy........ 

, Et a la page 91 : 

' From the preceding parlgraph 



•••••••• 



COUnrOP QUEBN'8 BENCE, 1886. 



Ill 



in a suit 



TlMdiroatorUI board ofa bnnk ahUk i. i. „ — — — — . 

oblige! .0 moot «K.que„,i; ;„^„ llt'fj' '•' T^'"'' «"*«"""«»• '• Th. o„, ^ 

Jull^ar^ .- 1 ^ . ""J'' "?*' '" *"«P • "lo^o "nd constant auixtrviaioa Of«r tbt' '*'•'"'•» S^ 
dalljr oourM aod oonduot of ita buaincaa In mnnv ,«•«:„. „.• , I *'"•• '♦•nk 

T.!:^ . T '"'*** ' ''"•<""^ *>«»'» '"not Ihu. with bank. ^h. Jaciua. 

to niak« (hia •cquaintaneo ao ihorouffh tl..» «„ .« " •■ uwir auij 

co„.i.t«ntIy to u,urp a funoHon of^^? l c '"" *""••'""• '*""« ••"' 

■ Iheir koowUe. '^ "'^ ""^ '^"^'''^ "^ ""r"'*"""" '»»"«-ovcr without 

Bell, com. i, page 476, Aft. 1*2 ■ • - 

a c^"'r^to^uT3r ^'^''•' '^ ^^•"""•''''^" -•.. 

Voill^lr i^''''*'"''"''- *2'"»''««"'<' Bugnct. Art. 11, No,. 447 ct 448 do \ 
1 obhRBtlon d«« oommottftdta ; ""■«■*< ct 44S do 

£.X:i';r:X'.;:.:.xti>iir;i;', 

The oaahior mnj borrow money on bobulf onlhe b«nk . 
to.™ k JIIT' • ' ''.™" ''"'"""» '•'" '">> • k"»"Mg. .1,., ,1,0 

. i..A. oondu,. or :::iiit;f ; :::^?o ::ri"r;!:o°r °""'^^^ 

B.g.o. 00 E^oppol, M Edition, p.g, 547 to .u': '' """ """■•- 

AI»M„™,„„B„„k,,„j Banking, p.g.l8„. ' 

upon him authoritv to do nnvrl.!„ a' . ^''"'^^ '° ''"''" «>nf«rred 

the charter ortHc^a trauZ"'^ "^'''"'S ''" '"^^ corporatc-bebulf which 

-^er i..e;r«r:; i:r:^i '7 tr:s:,r '' '^ \""'' - 

libera an thisl it ia niv,dl«. »« ""' ° P"**"" "<> "ido and 

".oj have X ken If h"^^^^^^^^^ T?^ '? '"^ ^"''^"'"^ ^^ »"-»• "« 
.ndinherent'illega, ty it i vauS and bi"", f T" '" ''" '''"'^ "^ "-voidable 

the ingUtution, unaertaiccg bj the oa»hier since the creation of 

Wya. GrwD, 6 L. T., N. S., 390. 
JJJ the Gonrt (tf Exchequer : 




:m' 



'r 



X. 



mvBff Of 



QU1SKN| 



BKSOII, IBM. 









i 1' 



'^ 



•fht Citv i(u4 riiiinliirs esxtiidt h«i»i mMned to tlio «l«r«ind^nt, lh« durua^Ant oalkiil upon 

DUtricJ H». ijjij 8,„J,lL'r a« llw b«nk nnd a*kc4 lor piymciil df XIO in ttomjuiitt; Tht^^ihitliUr 

TingiflMk gn^g jijp (f,„, pmn j,, j.oM'^r hfM mn»tor'»t iiii>ni«y, nnd obtiliiHi||(tM ddfoinli^nl's 

TbcJiviufi fignnluro Ah^uilukmtl/ to n j)Ik<oL i'<.r i.'40, dafi.>ndant Ixiliuviiijf lltut lia was 

(jB»»r Bw-»5j{|||„jj a rvo<'l|il for il(t»» •i<»«i<y, tJiu trull^• tion wnn ontcrud (n tli« bank bookn 

nil a loiin from tho Innkc-f (>* tlio ddfi-iilnnt upon Ji ■ pIkoV.; Im'M, (hut tiotwitli- 

rlundinu tliu ct«tiii'r puid liin own dn'ck. tn llio ilcfondnnt. willi iho tmnkcr'* 

liloiM')', lliu Ititiikur Wiu not ciithled to ri!C'>vi,'r bitok I lint iiintioy n-oui tlic 

t dct'oniliint^ 

Ili'ld. iili»>. itiiil |itiiintitr innot rjliu\>0 tiim'«<.<lf fi'iini thu aoIh of bi« own omM 
wlio wim \iU fiuoiit uiid i>c*rvuiit, >>y Huyiii)/, lliut liu wut ciitircly fruo from l)l|| 

In tliis cn»« tbo bank rcouivcd no bmioUt froui tliu wronKful net of 
llio omhu'r, iind tbe net wnn wholi^ unau'borii9<l. v 

111 th<? cnxc of Mncktiy v*. (Airn B^nk of N. IJ. ; 
An a mil tot of fact, ibo biriik iioaurud tbo boiiofit of tbo frnud of tbeir 
niiinai;cr, nhl it wim not ni'ooM.iry fur tbo bolding to^o bofoud tbe fiiot^ of tbo 
ca«e, but on ibo priucipro tbnl tbo rotation ofn^antcr nod Mrvonl waaoatabliRhcd, 
it i^ oviiK'nt by cxnniinntion of tliu ohms tbu(t tlio ro->ult would not hnT«^be«n 
cliiiiitxud ifilu' liiiiik bad not rcccivud tbu bonoflt. ^ . 

In tbe folt'iwin;^ Now York cntc tboHiiiiiio doctrino U biid'dotrn, but tbo bank 
b'lj not boiK'flt'-'d by tbo trabunotion. \ -► 

C'nidwcll V-. Nntionnl Mpliawk Vulloy Ilink, 04 Birb. 333. 
PlnintifF il('[>0NiU!d w^mpTu ou.«bier of Jlefcndnnt over tbo counter 81300 tol)^ 
oniproycd in ibe purcl^ of United Stifcs bon<U and took rc<5cipt, M^nod. by 
tlioir cn^liicr in liiit o\^n name, ntnlinp; tbo objoct of tbo dejioiit; I'iaintiff tosti- 
ficd tliat liG ."upfioiioi b'! van dcnlint; i^itb tbu bank, nnd not wiib tbu cashior 
ptr.<onully. 

Jlold Ibat tbo contrnot was uiadu by tbo oa»liier on Iwbalf of bank, tbnt dcfon- 
(Kiiit was rosponsiblo for tbo nntni<y lol't by tbo plainlilTat tbu bank, wbolber 
the sanic was applied to tbe use of tbo casbier or to tbo corporation. 

Tbot tbe bank will bo bound by tlio «ot« of tbooa.shior, if tbo directors, oitbor 
throtigb inutfcntion or otberwiso, sulfur the oa«bior to pur*uq a particular line 
of conduct' for a considcrablajteriiid wilbo'it objc^gAjn.^^ ^ 

At pojic 350 casbier >u«|(;d " Poniroy," wittiB^M|||iiWsbicr. ^^.■.* ^ . 
In Kueb a cnic piirol erldenco wa» adu>issab||B^|J|B|ipp it was'ipSMcinl 
net, thpu^b tbo money wan credited in tbe boolPPlWbalff to tbo casbior'a pri- 
vate occount. 

,Mccl»«nic»' Bunk of Alcjnndrio v9. tbo Bank of Columbia. Wbontons^ 
%port8, 5j p. 326. ' , ' 

•n cbcck wa? drown by a person wlio was the cashier Xtt an incorporated' 
it apfJisrcd doubtful upon tbe fno '■ of the inBtrum^nt whether it was 
cial or |bJ|>iyate act, parol 9vidoitco was a^m'ttcd to sho;v that it was an 
eialact. SP*- 
Mackay VS. Corn Bank of New Brunawick, 30 Law Times, N- S. 180. 

■ J ■ ' ' ! 




A 



m; 



covRfWqvtma ^enoh, m^ 






TIif,Toi:W^ 




^ 



Ion of lh« bank whi«h indaMd tti« .nn.n.„i . ^ , '? tofi»U«k 

lli« bank an.! h« #a^ aoap«IU,l u> pa, i»,.b, "uoraea to ^^ ^^^^ 

II.I I bj 4h,M Lord.h.p.0/ ,h. IVIt, (;«u,.oil. thai heoould r«,o».r fren. A. °''"*' 
baok ho a«o«ot «, j>ald. „ .h. bank had ob.ainad Iha h«,eflt oHI J '2 V pi 
.nUlloo.. I «ld. al... thai a .„„»,r I, a,.wr.bl.lbr o^,y .„oH wiZ. U 

'^ro„K " " ••" ''" "" "'■"■""' •"'^ th.0-. of 4 oZ 

(trrfin on Banking, 78. - ' . ' 

Birbour, Tol. ft*. pa^a8 340 to Bid. 
Tha rtiapondflnu on Itioia \mt aubiiilttad * _ ^^ ^_-^-- - 

, 3.d. Th« Co„<, .„a „« .h. ^,,„j..,, ... ,^„ ^„;^^^ ^^ ^- 

poniir*' ^""^ ^" "" "'*' ""*" *" '"^""""^ "'*'''"** *••• ^r'*«*8« °f "•• 

4th Thai th^Dlrwtor. of the J«,que. Carti«r Bank, ik* re.pon<ant rapa- 
dmlad tha an.d Loan of •2R.000 a. aoon m thej obtained ihowl^Wit "^ 
In support of thoaa contentiona, tliay oit«d, G. C. ArU. 1704-1727 . ' 
iVT?" ?"•'" ""* ^"^'"K'PP- 137, 138, 161, 162 «ndUB3 
lutk^No' 2T "" ^"P""^'"""' »"''■• N-- ITl, 172 a;fe^78, 2»d Vol. ' 
Morawau on prirate Corporattona, paragraphs 253 and 264 ■ ^' " ' 

On thaquestionof the ratiaoation ofthe «jUpf the .mployaa of . btukJiTth. 
dir«,tors thay oitad Morse on Banking, pag, 160. W 

V Brioe on IHtra Vire$, p.p. 760, 751 und 759. " * ' 

*' *f *'^'* J.-Tl.i.. i:. an important oaae on aoooupf of iti difficully and m ■«. 

oountotiucon-idorablc pecuniary Interest. The respondent saed the .11" «t 
.n ».cou«t netting forth a variety of tranaactioos, bat Ae i.s«^ are nT dl:; 
to the OHMdoraUon of one of th.a.. The Court ia, moreo3«i«,hZd ^m 
entonng ,nto any consideration of tlu* abcounU, for it i. a^Ld bZl^^ 
p.rt.es thai, if the appel..„t% tender is not auiSci^nt. |he?uSnt . trCc^n' 

of 125.000 from the appellant on th, security „of lire hundred .h,r« of hS ' 

w^ the monq^ became due the caabier arranged thM it ahould remain paUl^ 
on demand. Th.s state of thing, conUnaed till the 22nd PebroarrlWB IJ^T 
.he shares of he bank fell much in «lue. and therea'poadentnoli^^fhe ;rhi^^^^ 
that, unlem the amou nt .m paid, or ,o«>e other eetUement come ZL^^ 



• 



'c 



7^ 



% 



>■ 



, ^ 



^, 



fcf^ 



^ P0^^^? 



'■¥ 



i ' 



114 



OOURT^OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



1% 



'okt^^Bw^ would ^ sold. Tlfo^cashicr then sow the maoager of the Sayings bank and told 
•tags Bank,, him tha^ Ko ^as not the real debtor,* tbat the aharoH were not his, but were held 
The J»tqUcg Vy hi™ for the bank, as it was unlawful for tho^ank to hold its own shares^ that 
- Oartier Ijank. he had borrowed for his bank, and tliat he would hand over as further security 
; "effects of the bftnk. This he did to the value of nearly 830,000. It appears 
'thatthe manager of the SavingiTbank took no steps to enquire further as to how 
^ this matter stood, taking the sni^ment of the caiihier as suffioicnt explanation of 
this ezttaordinary transaction. This is to some extent explained by the groat 
^ confidense the directors seem to have iff the cashier, and to the fact, necessarily 

known t) the manager of the Savings bafikj-tfiat th^ cashier had actually bor- 
rowed fcr his bank, if not in an identical nikinner, at all event) in a somewhat ' 
*. similar inanner, nca;^' $500,000. Nevertheless it is not susceptible of con- i 

V . • • tradiotion, that the $25,000 were paid to the cashier, and tliat they went info ' 

\ .^ his private account at the bank, which was then -overdraWd to the extent of"^ 

^18,000, and that in no regular book of the bank did the transaction appear, as 
now represented, nor is there any evidence to show that ll» cashier held the five 
, hundred shares in trust .for the bank. The manager of the Savings bank 
\ offered to transfer these shares to die'cashier,1)ut he declined to take them then,. 
' J^>" /*nd it seems they remained in the {possession of the Savings bank. On the 6th 
I April, 1884, Mr. Barbeau^llsus thatihey were " au nom de la Banque d'Epar- 
gnes, j^ orois, encore, mais a compte special,'' p. 6. And, again, " d^es parts 
. sont au nom de la Banqus d'Epatgnes et devrpAt Stre a I'ordre de'la Banque 
Jacquibs Cftrtier," p. 8. Of course, the last bit of this sentence covers the whole 
questilon. If tha, bunk shares should be the property of the bank respiondent, it 
wdiild.be no great effort to presume the rest of appellant's story. Bilt the diffi^ 
^% culty' in appellant's way is to establish, by verbal evidence, a transaction which 

is to^lly at variamse with the form of the transaction as it appears in the books . 
^of all t"he pat-ties. ^Appellant's story is not impossible, and it may even be con- 
' ceded that it is not improbable. The Savings bank had no sufficient reason to 
act in bad faith in the matter, but it is evident that the burthen of proof is on , " 
appellant. It does not appear to me to be a qit^tion of the extent of the 
eashier^s^majr^otr^ULof implied ma»(2ut, from the course of events, for the cashier 
did n6& act in the name of thrlHrak.-^^1r^udah, it is true, says positively in , 
, , ' y- his evidence that the cashier saw him on the^Stb September, 1873J and adcod 
y; tot $25,000 on the seouiij^ of the 500 shares which stood in his name, but 
Whiob were really the'^ shares of the Bank, which the cashier held, because it was 
unlawful for the bank to buy in its own 'sliares. Mr. Gott^, when first examined, 
does not rememb^ to have seen Mr. Judab on the^ subject^, but says :— « J'ai 
du le mentionner a Monsieur Bsrbcau ; maisje he saohe pas que j'ai jamais 
"^l fait de declaration formelle a cet effet," p. 3^6. Further on he says : " Apr^s 

f avoir murement r^flechi je declare que j'w mentionnd a Monsieur Barbeau, 

le g^rant de la Banque d'Epargnes, que I'empruatque jo faisais sur ies dits 
7 parts ^tait pour ^avan^^. de La Banqud Jacques Gartier, et lorsqne la 

Banque jd'Epargnes m'a demands des suret^s ooUat^rales, j'ai fait la mSme 
ddclaratidnY j'ai fait la m@me d^elafatioa dans Ies deux oooasiona aq gerant 



; 



-*^i- 



1^.*^ 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BIJNOH, 1886. 



116 



■'% 



hL^!!r,-^'"''V- ^'^'^"^''- ^"'■"•"8 to Mr. Barbeau'8 evidence, wo find The City «d 
' »,«-. i*.i ir ... '^"'^"•"^ ■"'""'' CP- 1) But in oro98-exarainat on he explains „ »«>* ' 

declaration fonnelle de la part de Monsieur Honor6 QvtUi que o'Atait pour La 
Banque ee pret avait 4t6 fait, nona n'aurionsjaniaislngd a eonsideTr cela 
comme uno dctte de la Bunquo Jacques Cartier. • """«'•'«"' "«'» 

Q. Jusqu'a oette ^poque la. la Banquo d'Epargnes avait oonsid^r^ oe orflt 
comme ayantetd fait 4 MonaieurCotdpersonneLent? i"""''''^' "« ?'«' 

■R. Oui, monsieur, * 

llTI:T •"'"* '^'""*' ""^ q-inzequejp^^aque d'Epargnesii consid^Jrd 

R Prdoisement. ' f"- i*^^ ' 

.f r t'\'^. 'V^"? "'"""' '"'"'•* '""■^'y ^'"^ t''* babk against the evidence 
of tha books .n both banks up till February, 1875. Bai it seems that evehn 

On the 15th June the Bmque Jacques Cartier elased its doors, and ^r. Bar- 
beau became its manager while he remained girant of the Saving^ bankf Then 
aa^^mtton was performed which, of course, i^nnot affect the rights t,f parties 
but which at all o^bntvindicates whaOIr. B.rbeau thought it desirable sLuTd 
be accep^d as the TK,sition of the transaction. The entri°es in the books of the 
savings bank were altered for the current month of June by transferring the 
credits arising from the notes paid and held as security for^the «25 000 loan 

Jaly^tho whole account^ was transferred to the Jacques Cartier bank. Doubt- 

r 7 . ;;'u ';'''^- ^^-^ ^'^'-ght himselJjustiaed in this proceed^ 
because he had tohi thediractor. how the matter stood in presence of Mr. CouS', 
and tha they made no objection W considering it as a debt of the bank. I have 

o^doubt as to Mr 'Barbeau's veracity, but, taking his statement as it stands t 

m^l " f"p ^ ^''"'' "''" '"« •' P™-** '"^'^ *he directors Sly 
tnde stood the import of the oommuni,vtioa. On the contrary, those examine! 

of the case or say they have no recollection of it. And Mr. Cott^ who 
must have desi^d a public recognition of the fact that he waa. ao'tln. for The 

^I'in her''''7%"'^V'^»''*-- ^-*''» - fi-^ no'corr::^;;^'; 
entnes in the Jacq«e8^Cart«,r bank books to correspond with the ohangV in the 

^nted a hosUle interest, and there is no evidence that theattention if the di?^ 

coLw'ir^ '"'^ f ** ^^'' ^"'*»*"' «' l*^ »y «* t^^»«kB under h^ 
contn,!. to thu, entiy of the 23rd June. It must be ,^aent, I tbtnk that no 

unaugorized^act of Mr. Barbeau could alt^r the relation, of the i.^^ttZ 

Jie .e.^^1,1^. ,,1 '»^i"«^, t herefo re, th^ while Mr. Barbeau waa man^ng 



> tcpr eaa atec HwtiiF 



9. >i 

fS 



lie 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



The City and tjje Jacques Cartier bank nothing has been proved to hnve taken place whioU 
ingi'^Bank' couW alter the original condition of the transaction, which on its face was a loan 
•n«* to Mr. Cott<5 personally. But appellant has another line of defence which presents 
Uartier Bnnk. a question of greater delicacy, upon which the judgment of this Court dcfinitivdly 
I turns. The account was transferred in the books of the Jacques Cartier baijk 

on the 23rd Juno, 1815 at latest on the 29th July, it was altered in the pass- 
book. In December of 1875 Mr. Barbeau ceased to have any authority in the 
Bank Jacques Olrticr. Its afifuir^ were immediately transferred to a new, and, 
it must be presumed, vlgprous administration, yet it was not till tho 5th of 
^ August following, that they repudiated the debt entered on their books on tho 

23rd of June of the previous year. Admitting to the fullest extent that Mr. 
Barbeau 's position in the Banque JacquesCartier, so long as he remained there, 

was a disturbing element in estimating the presumption of acquiescence in a 
transaction entirely in favor of tho Bunque JacquesCartier, how can we account J, 
for the silence of the administration during more than nine months ? ItJ^y>6 
■observed that their omission is not alone a failure to see an entry iQ ^ipP^s, 
out of which the appellant is seeking, to construct a title. This title p|-]^^|)n a 
fact that the appellant lent $25,000 of his money on tho absolute trafisrerMof the 
securities of the Banque Jacques Cartier. Wc have thus the legil title of the 
appellant in possession and the reason of that title. Respondent answers : " I was 
ignorant not only of the entry of the 23rd June and, of the fact that my treasure 
was over the way- in the hands of my solvent neighbor until the 5th of August, 
1876." As a matter of fact this answer may be true, but the question wo have 
to consider is whether the legal result of this lache» is atjquiesoence in the trans- 
action or not. Several other minor matters have been adverted to which huve 
not escaped our attention. One is that several of theau notes given as security 
for the loan wore renewed. This necessitated their withdrawal from the Savings ^ 
bank and the substitutjpn of an equivalent. Tins sqCma very probable, and if 
proved it would strengthen the argument that the directors cannot be presumed 
to have been ignorant of all this movement, that is to say, on the 3rd May, 
1876. I confess, however, jtW I have not been ^ble to trace these renewals 
•atisfactorily. Again, it/has been insisted on that after the /lirectQrs should have 
known how tho matter stood, and before the*;^ repudiated the entry of tho 23rd 
June, 1875, they actually borrowed, in much the same form as Mr. Cott4 h^d 
done, a large sum from the Savings bank. To the suspicious, eye of worldljL 
people the idea of an intentional reticeuc6 at once suggests itself. We, however,^ 
have to look further. The law does not permit courts to presume fraud, and 
• ^e must enquire whether this fact of the new loan, under the circumstances,- has 

any significance. We think it has. It is not to be expected that tho court will 
* believe that the directors of the Bank Jacques Cartier went to the Savings bank 

to bf^row a specified sum of money without examining how they stood with the 
Savin<»s bank, and without examining their own treasure. The l^wt examina- 
~ tion of their own books, even of their pass book with tho Savings book on the 

3rd MayJ must have shown them the pretention of the appellant ; a single sum of 
«dditioa must have told tliem of the missing treasure. There is only one other 



"^ t«S c^ ^ ^■^ " "¥f 



COUBT OP QUEEN'S BENCa; 18^6. 



117 



rC-Hh .^Zd° "l"z ■" "; °°n™'' "'• *>»'« '"-'-I' — ^^ ""' - 

Xtr.7 ;t:r:ir -v"""'^'^- "- ^"^^-K"""" *^ 
«edu J.* ilr. . J ,i«r'r °° ^"' t'" •"" ''~° '"^^^ - 

L S ■ '"" '°'""*' """I" •'">" *• SarioM bank of ««5 

Colli! ii, ,h, book, of th. T. JL r. ;• V !^ "* °""°^ *» "" «"''" of 

.h. deport. .d,„^ rr th' slh' TnitTh t"" * V" ^"'™"^' "">■ 
advance of $143600 whifll. ♦k^ Q • l . "'*'^ °*°*» Wotea n further 

tomers' promissory notes whinh th. V ^T • ^ * iodgment of ous- 

follows : WOoTz^W o„ 1 tt /r""" ^"i'" '""'^ *"'"'^"«'* »-«' - 

rb-,i-d3?fr-fvitrs:s^^ ,: 

amount of «29 326 21 ?„? ^ ^ transferred to the Saving, bank the farther 

Saving, St p^L^^^^^^ 

then feld hyTS^^lT T ^71'"^ '^' ^''''^ ''^^""'^^^^ 

*o«ji, ^;6lt« was dismissed and Barbeau «nnn;n*^j . • ^ "'" •""• 

«uu jjaroeau appointed to investigate and make 



>^. 




118 



COtTBT m QUEEN'a BENCH, 1880? 






The City and report on tho afifairB of the institation and to act as eenoral administrator. H» 



iaga''wMk' "^oocptad. IjLo declares >hat soon afterwards he explained to the dtreotors in the 

Md presenoe of (Mt<$ the 825,000 transaction, and finding that )t was not entered 

.nk.iji tlie tooka^of tlie Jacques Curtie;: bank, he ouused an entry to bo made on tho 



Tho Jiwqaes 
Cartier Biu 



y 



23rd <nilSeJiJ^he journal,, crediting the balance of the loan to the savings bank, 
then aniounting to,&23,961.11. An entry of it was also mode in the pass book 
of tha/jaoquea Cartier bank with tho Savings bank by the employees of the 
Saving bank, 19th Jul;r, isfft, to paid loan $23,961.1% On the 14th of 
AugUQ^ h^ made his statement and report of the affairs of the Jacques Cartier 
bank, which assumed the $25,000 loan to be according to his view of the matter ^ 
Ah election of directors took place in December, resulting in some change of the 
p^rsonel, Mr. Beaudry was chosen president and appointed administrator, and 
qn the 16th August, 1876, investigations having been made, the directors pulsed 
/a resolution repudiating tho loan of $25,000, of which notice was given to tho 
' Savings bank, and the present action has been brought in cunsequeucd. Cott.6, 
'" in his evidence, swears that the entire qf the transactions above mentioned, hi- 
^ eluding tho 'loan of $25,000, were m'ade for and -in the interest of the Jacques 
/ Cartier bank, that the money reoei;ii;|ed went to the profit of the bank, and that 
\ the shares he gave as security were shares owned by the bank, which he liad 
Unrohased with the knowledge and approbation of -the directors to prevent the 
>^are8 becoming!' depreciated, «>Five of the directors have been examined. They 
j^eny paving given Cott^ authority to make the loan of $25,000, or to transfer 
to 9the^ banks any of the promissory notes lield by the Jacques Cartier bank, or 
th^t tKey had authorised the entries in tlie books acknowledgingihe loali, or 
t^t Cott^ had informed them of the history of the $25,000 loan. Two of them, 
however, admit that they^new such 'notes had passed into the hands of otiiers, 
Lapierre and Galarneau, and one of them, Galarneau, admits that Cottd was 
'"" sometimes authori^d to purchase shares of the bank from insolvent estates and 
to prevent their becoming depreciated. This witness, when asked if Cotte was 
not authorized to effect a loan in his own name, says he does not recollect, and, 
in regard to Cott4. having informed them of the $25,000 loan, they say they do 
not recollect one. However, Hudon denies it positively, but he seems to refer 
to regular meetings of th^ directors. It is to be expected that aftetr' the' failuce 
of the bank tifb direoCors^ould feel inolined to throw the blameon- the oasliier, 
while thaj; officer would seek to excuse himself by showing thai he had the opn- 
- ourrence of ihe directors'^ what he did. - It is very evident'fromthe testimony 
of the directors themsefves that Cott^ was allowed to oopduct thei#ffiiira of tbe 
bank much as he pleased, and hiid general control of its affaire. TQ^y all agree 
that they reposigd the utmost confidence in him; they adopted i^ll his reportsi 
and one of them, Lapierre, stated that he even declared a dividend, of 8 per oentJ| 
obe month or two before the failure of the bank, showing that a/matter of such 1 
vit&I importance was entirely left to him. It is, besides, apparent that the loans | 
from the Savings bank effected by him Were numerous and to 'a large extent : 
and promissory notes of their customers are shown to h^ve been transferred to 



9tiwr-bftal»«-wrfl-aa-»he^vingBl«a^s- 



(A imKmmm n w €ii tnn J^tjkA twM-fr 
vQUvco tlfnx inv ittOCr'fuat 



troumpviniocs m 



J 



■^. 



.^ 



i^ ,VJ*^/y^@y"" 



,r 



COURT |0P QUEENS BENCH, 1886. 



119 



. Xfl7uCT,^'''fh ^^-^ of the transfer ^f the cu».o.„or»' The Oi., J 

the Savings L„k had irtlT . ^ r'*"'"'^' """^ ^''° ?""'«' •«'«>'>'l'-"g 

conduct «Sms to Wtit the 1. .T™! *^' '* ''"'^ ''"^'•"^•*^- '^'^^"^^- 
because in T fecrof tl^lt ?rK' "r*^ "* '^*'"^"-'™'« *''«'^ "^"""'ity, 
the Savings Lnk to r. 1 1 T ' V'! *'°"'^' '^'^ '''''"'^ *« ^^e same source 
/thetostiZntltbeli^^^^^ Comi„« now to the opplication^f 

Cottd was inadmilble n^ that the tosUmony of Judah, of Barbeau and of 

debt of comXz^v'jz^^z^T- ""vr ^""' '•''• ''' ^--»^ 
adn.i.ing that .be oii^^^x:! tz^^::::^T^ ''^ '" 

called in, concedine thaf Pn«i5 La ti . " ' ^ ''"*" *"« 'o"" »«» 

the bank wit. thrSa,? f b^^^^ the power to^ borrow, he placed the assets of 

Joan in the sa^e mannZ he t M h T""' '" """ ''' '«''" '^ « "^^^^ 
tion the renewinTof the loan waT-P .T !"V' V ""* ""8'" «^ *''« *™°'««- 
o( the «ecuritirwaL piTe^a^^ Th'e S ''' I T '"" """^ *"« ^''P^' 
sessed of » sufficient JI^IT • ?u t ®*""S' '""''' ''«'"« »' *»»« time pos- 

havc been realtd in^^^^^ ?'*'*'" ^'"''^ ^'»^™^ '»*•«'' «»»!<» 

having an iatei^ chose th^'hC^^^^^^^ ^^''^^ ^"'^ "^'"^ 

the loan it is ours, and hereTsl^rr.rike^rs ^ "nTe Z'''^ 

bound the ^r&e rr^it wir iZ^^^^^ '' r ""-"^^'^ 

year, to repudiuto transaction which bad tenll^^ 

into the books and accounts of the bank. (1) '^^'''"^' '"'^' '^ «"«'', entered 

A. Branckaua, attorney foH^ants. " '"'^"' """^'• 

^c^te, Glohen^ky & Buaillon, attorneys for respondents. 



(1) 



The case is now pending before the Prirj Council. 




/^';5 



Jx- 



-Z- 



120 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



M \ 



"7 : ' r^ ~^ 

COUIl DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 

(KM APPEL.) 

MONTREAL, 21 MARS 1886. 

CetllM Sir A- A. Dorion, jageen ohof; les hon. jugos Monk, Tbssibb, Crow,. 

et Baby. 



^v- 



PIERRE ETIBNNE NORMAMDKAU, 

{Diftndtur *n Cour di premiir* Inilanet.) 

ApriLAHT; 



■T 



Vy • t'HARLBS ALEXANDER McDONNBLL, Bs-^oautIi, 
4. \ (Demandtur «ni Cour de premiin Jnitanee,) 

iRTIMfu 

Jnft :— Qu'an Qroit rexficutoor testunentoire tit uisi oomma dApositaire 16gal, pour Iw 
fins de rexicntion du totUment, datltieni meublM de I A sueoeaioa, p% 
qu'il p«at en nrendiqaw U pdMeuion mime contra I'hiritier et la 
Ugtttaire, (art 918, 0.< C.) 
Que dani laa eirconstanoei de Teapioe I'exiciiteur pourait enlerer au tuteur det 
h6ritieii mineurs la pouauion du mpbilier de la dite succession. 

Le jagement do la Cour Sup^rieure (TorranM, J.) se lit oomme suit : 

Considering (hat defendant hath failed tO iprove that the appointment b£ 
plaintiff 08 executor was ondnly suggested or inAQQQOed; 

Considering that-the title of plaintiff is suffiol^t >o maintain hia olaim for 
the moveable of the succession of the deceased Mrs. NQrmandeau, and that the 
claim of defendant as tutor, should not conflict with or overrule the same ; 

Considering that.plainriff hath established his title as executor of said will 
to the following articles, to wit, etc: Doth overrule defendant's plea and adjudge 
plaintiff in his said capacity to be the owner of said moveable, effects pf the 
aggregate value of one hundred and ninety dollars and thirty oeats, doth declare 
the seizure thereof valid, doth condemn defendant to deliver up the same to 
plaintiff within eight days after the service upon him, defendant, of this judg- 
ment, and in default of defendant eo doing within said delay, he is hereby 
condemned to pay to said plaintiff ds-qualit^ the said sum of one hundred and 
ninety dollars and thirty cents, the whole with costs distraite to Messrs. Judab 

& Brandiand, attorneys for plaintiff. 

Jugement confirm^.. . 

J)out¥e, Joseph et Dandwand^ avoeats de Tappelant. 

S. Pagutlo, conseil. . / ' 

JudaA, .SrancAaud e( ^atM«t, aybcats de I'intim^. 



'■A.- 



\.- 



■^ 



W^' 



COURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 1886. 



121 



ProwDk 



COURT OF QUEEN BENCH, 1886. 

\ MONTREAL, MAROH 23, 1880. 

lioBioN, C. J., Monk, Ramsav, and Gross, J.J. 

;> THOMAH MoOREBVY, 

(Defendant in the Court below,) - 
. . „„ APPitUKT; 

LOUia A. 8KNK0AL, L, 

^ (J'laiftif tn Court bilou,} 

_ RnpoMowiT. 

"■WOATIOM of JUDflMMT 

BOBION r r A ;• f """P"'«''«''"»° of the ciroam.Uncw of the c«.. 
IJOBIOW, C. J.-A tuotiOD has been in.,de in behalf of the aDnellnnt in t».5« 

rid :i'i'; ^n'" ^" ''' '""• ^''«» '•'^ «- - ildTo t. „t 

a eil Z^S*^!'' the appellant. Th. re.pondenfSoounaol insisted that tSe 
.ppelhntBhouIdbe called, «d default wa. entered against hin, ¥fie Cour! 

the appeal. Yesterday an appl.oatioo wa. njade, supported bj affidavit to hate 
whetertheCo^^^^^ '^ ^'^^ '"•'" "''''' The, first question was 

rendeld LoVd m"Tu ''"^' ?' '"'" '"' »'-' *''«« "g"**' .nd judgment 
rende«d Lord Mansfield said that the Court had decided the cJ under a 

..Jpprehe„«on a,to an authority which had been cited, and a nZ™" 
r«r:en? V"' t"^-^'y.»''— wa. decided diienmtly fro»T. fi" 
hfri /""«"'«'•''»» wmething similar had been done. This waa a« 

» ^t o7 r r ' u ^V'* P"^"* ""• "•• C«"' had acted «;on the ,ttl 
frLayrrl« -ff-'J^at t1.e appeal Was not «.riou, and was «e«^ 
lor delayj It was now reprtSen fed, however, that the appeal was broueht on 

ZldT"uf;'r' t T"^^^' the Coirt were of Cion th r^el 
shonld be put back on the roll, and it would be heard oo Friday At the «^ 

orb^.ul:;r^^^^ by thegrantlngof thU appliJatio^ t Z 

on thi ^rt Court would m every case allow . case to bc^,ut back 

hJ^l "w J* '°M •""**:'' '^ ^'~'''*'°°' "-^ »•»• Court, while it hefd thJTit = 
ha%tMpo,|.r, would exercise it very discreetly indeed. It would be no «o„„J> 
% ^dulgen^ihat Parliament or other courts'were sitting aTthe letf- 

• i>.«ro«arrf,ittorney for appellant . Motion granted. 

i?»A«»nef, SainviUe AMan^u at f n r n ny f..r r .. rn n a c 4 ' 



i 



• ■ ** ■■'■*■ •- ' v/' ■? 



I ■ 



■-V«-*- 



^ 



182 



OOUttT OF QUEENS BENCH, 1886. 



IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S '^ENCII, 1886. 

(APPEAL BIDB.) \ _ ' ,Jl_ 

UONTKEAL 27tii, march; ISHB. 

Coram DoBioN, C. J., Ramhay, Tehsier, CnoBi, Babv. 

THE CKNTRAL VKRMONT RAILWAY COMPANY, 
^ (Ptlitt^iifrf in th» Cwrt Mow,) 



Me PICI.LAIITI ',. 



AND 

THE TOWN OF ST. JOHNd, 



. (,Keipondtnt$ in th« Court below,) 

RWI'OHDIHTII. 

HELD :— That the limit of the Hunioipality of the town of St John exteods to the centra of 
the River Richelieu,and it It territory within the Jurifldiotion of the Local Legii- 
. lature. 

That the Corporation of said town has the right to impose taxes on that part 
of the rallwaf bridge crossing the Richelieu River which is situated within the 
limits of the town, as defined bjr an Act of the Quebec Legislature. 
The question was whether the oorporatioa of the town of St. Johns have the 
right to impose tigces on that part of the railway bridge crossing the Riohulicu 
river, which is situate within the limits of the town as defined by an Act of the 
localjegislaturo. The appeal was from a judgment dianiissing a petition for an in- 
junction to prevent the town of St. Johns from levying,under warrant of e«eoution,a 
certain amount of taxes imposed on the railway company. By the 43-44 Vic, 
chapter 62,the eastern boundary of St Johns was fixed at an imaginary line running 
along the middle of the Richelieu river. The railway crossed the river by a bridge, 
and the corporation claimed the right to tax the, half of this bridge, situated 
within the limits of the town as defined above. A warrant of execution issued 
for $359.66 Wihereupon the Railway Companyyapplietjl for a writ of injunction to 
prevent the amount from being collected. The case came before Mn. Justice 
Chagnon, at St. Johns, who dismissed the petition^ *His Honor held that a 
structure ipuch as a bridge, erected over a navigable river, was private property ; 
that the Provincial Legislature had power to, include a|)>ortion of the river with- 
in the limits of a municipality tor purposes of municipal administration, and the 
bridge built over such portion also came under municipal control and was subject 
to taxation. i - 

Appellant, an;uendo: The Civil Code of the Provioce of Quebec, article 400, 
declares that navigable and floatable rivers and their banks are dependencies of 
the Crowo domain, and Article 399 declares that property belonging to the 
Crown is governed by public or administrative law. The B.°N.A. Act, 1867, 
declares by section 91 that the exclusive right to make laws for the peace, order 
and good goveioment of the Dominion of Canada is' vested in the Parliament of 
Canada, and to the exclusion of concurrent legislative powtirby the L^islatores 
of the Provinces, as r^ards navigation, and the Act 31 Vicroap. 7, sec. 10 
" <jaebee, dwlttws iiM»ffi B otj^ftt^»A r Uol6^o l Uh«^^ivil Code shall la 



A 



COURT OP QUeIn'8 BENCH, 1886. 



138 






I ■ — _^ 

7jTr!l^l ^uT'- .""'"• """*' ^°* •""•"•"»•■ »ha.rtlole which It pur. >0.ni„a 

4 j2i vT-n «?• ^'Tr "''^""•^''' ^J' '^' "'«» 4»»» ""^^ «f "'• Act ""r;*^- 

4J.44 VIC. cap 62, aMuined the power to confer municipal control for all theTh* T.,wn « 
,>urpo«„ menuoned in the .aid Act. and especially (by .cction. U4-15-IC) "'•"^"• 
right, of axafon and forced expropriation, and of eminent domain, w L t" 
..re.p..t.uly -ubmitted the Legi.lature of Quebec could not it«lf xerZ .L 

Z\J "-Fretfully .ubmitted that the attempt to tax the ono-hulf of 

^id .t.lr '" TTT T\ '^' "'' ""' '"''°'' '"^ ^''-- »»- -i'iJ'o of the 

?t Joh " . °f ""^ "'■"''*''•" '''«' •"'J'"'""^ »« th« Corporation of 

St. John,, wa. not even aulhorixed by tho Act 43-44 Vic. cap. 62. oTif author. 

1' T*!'"""""^ r """"•*' contemplated by that Act t w«i not 
autho„.od beoauw no " obligations or engagemenU " .xiating on the parr" the - 

Corporation wh.ch wa, replaced by the one created by thi. Act. if aSy exLt d 
wa, continued over or impowd upon the new CorporaUon. nor h^ it b^^nXwa 

l27r^T''T"'''' ••"*' ---.th;Towa Cou^^i tu'd 
only tax -and,, town lot. and part, of town lot- with the building, and erection. 

ion wa. not an erection upon any land,, town lot. or part of a town lot withTa 
the a.d Corporation, or which could bo thereon placed by any legWative el«t 
ment of Legislature of the Province of Quebec ; and. beaide,, « we h ve ^.Td 

eremoTrr':-'';^'" ** ^^ '"'^' ''■-- -» exe/cirdL tJ 1:"'; 
contemplated by the Act in queation. becau«, the only' manner in which theld 

nlvmLrhJrv^u" «''''" '''^**' "^"'"S-'" "«* it" -ubmitted that the 

etrwh"r^;'t":;^-"-^^ ^-^-^-' ^»:-^-. pagek,econd 

" thl^r^^'''!' **^.' ^T *'""'''"' '•*' "''^^ '"P^'^""* of ^Woh is, to require 
th^«, Urporauon. .n all oa«., to show a plaia and plear grant for the autZ X 

" f^l itT!"" " "" °o-»i'«'ion, and give, it all the power, it possesse 
(unless other .tatute. are applicable to it) it, careful .tudy in any giWa case 

duties ,t enjoy, and habilitiea it create The construction of it. yarioua 
-rother iJ^! f-^*"' '"' '" ^^ ^'^"'«' ~"*"^' <>'•'«' f« it i« oAned 



1 



-U 



^y^i^-flDtr'tuO 



"-> "• »"w lor II, IB qoncroiiea 
,.on are among the mo.t difficult problem, which p«rpl., _thk- 
judge. -xnotffdyoTTqreaWn of^rporation law beginT 



.\ ■ ■ ' 



>*♦ 



l?4 



_> 



COURT OF Qi;«KN'S^RKNGH, lH8d. 



Tlic Orm-nl •'with the olmrter, but It muiit oftentinimi b« pumutil into tho g«n«ral ttatutat 

Bfinoni U>. „ ^^^ |„,^j^|ntivo p„|ioy of the Htata, tDd ■fk«r lliit into Mio broad Held of xtn^ral 

T^ Town <4 "jjuiinprudonoo." It ia rn»p«otfullj lubmittfld tliat the iK«ntral Juriaprudouoa of 

tho country dooa not wnotion tho aaaumption. of authority by th« Prgviooiaii 

tr Lugialaturc ovnr tlio boda of nat igabla rivara, nor tbalparmiaaiTO autj^ority to 

plant piorn in thoir budii, nor tho ^rocilionof atruoturoa oyor their watera, nor tho 

extcnition of corporate righta over the rivor beda,* nor artifioiul erootiona upon 

thorn, whether for tatation (looal roTunue or niunioipal rovenuo) but that aoah 

Htreamaa^ under tho control of tho publio law of tho Enipiiro ; that their npi 

^ (Ability (which inoludoa thoir boda aud biinka) ia a trunt of the Parliainont of 

the Dominion of Canada, and that any attempt to invude tliii power under the 

guise of conceding municipal oroorporate authority ia oallra^l.aa it ia (UoK^r- 

'ouaand the natural ezteniion of auoh power or the attoiin3i|4Q enforoo them In 

th« manner and to the oxtont that the Act in question, 43-4'4' Vw^ cap. 62, might 

and probably would ultimately lead tocoofliotaof jurixdiotiow'nnd the aubmiaaion 

of the rivora of the Province to tho<oontrol of municipal or oivil lufr aa contra- 

diatin^uishod from the publio law of the country. 

Respondent arguendo: — Ltx premidro question qui se prtfsonte ioi <at oella 
de savoir «i luUgislaturo de Qu<S|i)eo avait lo droit do flxor lea liuiile* de la ville 
de 8t. Jean, d'un o0t6, & uno ligne imagin|i|r%, adparutlt por le milieu la rifi^rc 
Kichelien. " "W . 

. II n'eat pas doutcux que la lfi;iNlaiuro do"Qu,6be« avait le droit do fixer ik une 
Higne imaginaire divinanl par lo milieu la rividre Richelieu, lea limites de la ville 
de St. Jean, aans agir inoonRtitutionncllement. 

Nul doute quo lea rivieres navigablea, oomme la riviire RioKeliaa, aont rous le 
oontrdle du gouvernement f($di$ral,.m"ai8 la question qui se prtfsente ioi n'eat pas. 
oelle de savoir si la riviere Richelieu eat axolusivement ooua te oontrdle du 
gouvernement fid^ral, mais bien si lea limitea de la ville de St. Jean pouvaient 
itn fixfSead'un c6t^ au centre de la rividre Richelieu, par la Ugialature; atil 
oela il ne pout y avoir aucun doute. 

L'acte d'inoorponttion de la ville de Sk'Jean n'empidte nulleutient aur lea dVoits 
du gouvernement f(6deral, en faisant unc^gislation a'aiFeotant an aucune maniire 



/ 



le contrOl^e que le gouvernenjiont f^d^ral pout avoir aur la rividre Richelieu. Get 
aote d'incorporation determine purement et simplement oii aeront lea limitea de 
la ville de St. Jean du o6t^ de la riviere Richelieu, maia il D'ezoorce aucun cod- 
trOle 8ur la riviere Richelieu en autant que riviere navigable, et il n'attribue 4 
la ville do St. Jean auoune autorit^, ni auoun|pouvoir qui vienne on oonflit avec 
I'nutorit^ du pouvoir f(6d4ral. T^ 

Cette question a'est d^j& pr^sent^, dans ane cause de La Vilkde Longueuil 
contre la Compagnie de Navigation de Longueuil^ rapport^e au 6«. vol. du Leg<d 
News p. 291, et jug^e par FaCour Sup^rieuro & Moutr^al, pr^id^epar I'honorable 
juge Toaohereau, dont le jugement a 6t6 confirm^ & runanimit^ en revision 

Dans cette cause il a 6t6 d^cid^ que : ' 

*' The limits of the municipality of the town of Longueuil extend to the een- 

««tre Of ih« Tiwf St. LiWfiBttM, awrtlw^rhttrflR 



rm'i 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENOn, 1886. 



Its 



apkd MdoMdat th* propcrtjof ft Arrjr oompHy U IUbl« (o Uiatioo Th«CM(«l 

" tj tb* nnoioipftlltj." Varmonl ft^, 

U Moond* quMtion qoi m ptimaU Mt o«ll« qui • npport A I'tutoriU qu«Th« tSi. of 
p«ul «T0ir l'inUni4« d'inpoMr un« Uie nir 1m imiutablM iHu^t d»M U fill* d« ^'^ ''*'** 
ill. Jmd. 

0.tu aatorit^ m t^outo tfublio par 1. Mction 86«m« d« I'mU dlDoorpor.tion 
d«U Till* d« 8(. J«sa. 

L« troiii«me quMtioii iur laquelie e«tt« honorable Coar anra' 4 te 
pronono«r «.t o«lle qui a trait A I'ftutorittf qu« pouraii aroir I'inJimA. d'impow 
dM UXM tur dea iiiiiD«abt« dont I'app^lante na lerait qua looataira. 

.Cette quoation doit aiuai m dMdar an farour dea pi^tantiona da I'iotim^. 

Lappalante dit ella-mflme, daoa aa roqu«t* libeIl<Ja, qu'aila n'eat que 
looaUira d'une oerUine parUe daa immaublea aur leaquela la Ttlle de St. Joao 
8 lopoa^ dea taiaa ; or d'apr^e le. diapoaHiona de la "ieot. 370 dea olauaea .<$d<.. 
rnlMdeecorporatio!ndoTiIleeile«tdAjr<t<que: 

" Lea tazoH mnnioipales iinpoa<Se8 aur an ternin pourront «tre nSoIamtfea au«t 
'bian da looaUira, de I'oooupant oa autre poweaMur de oe terrain que da 

propri^taire, de mdme qae de tout aatre aoqu<$reur suba^uent de oe terrain 
'lomniAtae que tel looataire," occupant, po«eMe«^ ou acqudreur n'eat paa inaerit 
"BurJerdled'^Talaatioo." *^ - 

.• ^ol'l"* *® •*• ''"** <*'»'"'«T»f»ti<"' de la ville de St. Jean dit que la aec 
tioD 370 dea olauaea gdndralea dea corporationa de ville, •'appliquera 4 la riUe d« 
ot^Jean. « - 

Dowoif, C. J., aaid the oaae appeared to niae important quoationa, bnl on , 
looking into It the Court did not find much difficulty. By the Act of Incorpora- 
tion of the town of St. Johna the limit waa fixed at a line running in the middle 
of the Hirer Kicheliea. The Central Vermont have a bridge croaeing the river. . 
-ITT" «n«''i<'ip««ty of St. Johns hare for the laat four yean 

tmmei that.part of the bridge which atarta from the north ahore to the middle 
oftherifer. The municipality wera' about to collect these taxea, and iaaaed 
their warrant, when the Central Vermont took a writ of jiyanefion to have ift 
ordered that the town ahoald not collect the taxes because they were ultra virti 
Ihe raaaoo assigned was this : Tlat the province of Quebec could not by the * 
Act which y^u paMKNl in 1880 unite Ui the town of St. Johns part of a navigable 
nver under the control of the Dominion Parliament, and that the bridge which 
WIS on the river could not be taxed by the municipality. There could be no 

doubt that the limita of the town art. the middle of the river bed. Jt is terri. 

tory within thojurisdiotionofthe Local Legislature. And, that being », it would 

be a singular thing if the authority of the corporation did not extend to what 

wasdoneon the river. For example, places for the sale of Kquor might be . . . 

established every winter on the ice without any license. The river is not under ' 

woiri^ -^i^^'"''"^"'^'"*"*- Shipping .nd naviga'tion are the 
words used m the B. N. A. Act. That does not mean the rivcTat ,11. The 
nver .tsdf belong, to thelocal Cron domain Of oourae the Local Legislatura 
oould not stop navigation -op th e river, that wnu nW. Wh en the local Act caid 
tWlimito of the town should extand to t^emiddle of the river^it merely veatad 



^''1 



i:l 



' ^ K 



• I' 

IF - 



1S6 OOimf Of QURRN'g BRNOH, 18M. 



•lid ti'»ni which had botn raiaad to the validilj of Iho aMtiwmonl wore alMi hald to 



''m.JohnV''^«»'''>«"«»«J 



IS. 



JudKnumt <!flnflrm«d. 
Church, VhaptmiM, Hall (ft Nirolh, ftltomajra for Uio np|Mll>int«, 
Hobiiloux Jk Fortitt, for iha nwpoadflnl. 



01JIIT OF QUKKIfH HKNOH. 

|..^ (AI>PRAI. aillR.) 

V''\" UOmmM; i«ru MAY, tHtn. 
Coram O.-J. Doiioh, Monk, Trmhikr, (''kohh nn<i IJaiiv, JJ. 
TIIK lUllHOIIK (JOMMIHHIONKIIM OF ITONTIIKAI,, 

U>i/in<UnU and I'UiHlifB in Warramtif in tlu Court Mow), 

^ At*l'ILI.*NTa 

AMD 

JOHKPII PAUL HUB, 
' - (Pt0inlif i» tX* OouH i4h»)i 

AND 

TIIK MrfWIMHIPPr AND DOMINIOI* HTRAMHIirP COMPANY, 
' ** (./*i/*ndatit* in Warrant !/ iH th0 Court htliiw), 

lUipniiiiaMTi. 
Iltio :— 1. That all th« proprlaton of a ragUUrad Toaial muit Join la an actiun for dam- 

agaa lufflired by luob vaiaal. 
3. That th« Harbor Uonttaltilonara of Montreal ara not obliged to placa bMojri 

to Indleatt obitruellom in e»ary p«rt of tha channel of Wa St. ^a wrenc«. 

(Thi» JiidKHient wm rnrnriied la rarlew but re«tor«d in Iho Qiieati'g Herieb ) 
Tha Ht«aiUHhip " Ottawa," belonging to the J)oniinion Steaniahip Conipanj, 
waa wrecked ia 1880 in the Klvor St. Lawrenco near Cap A lu Iloohc. Tho 
wreck remained in the ri»er, and on tho night of May 11, 1882, « barge owned 
by Hub atruolt on the wreck and won sunk. lU auod the Harbor CorjimiiwioncrH 
for damagea amounting to 1643, alleging that the river between Quebec and 
Montreal waa under their charge ; that on tho night in question there was no 
light on the wreck to indicate its position, and that the negleot to light the 
wreck was the eauso of the oeoident. The Harbor OommisHioners called in the 
Steamshtp Company as their warrantors, alleging that the wreck was their 
property,' that tho| had been notified to remove it, under pain of being held 
rosponmblo for all damages that might be occasioned by its presence in the river. 
The- CommiHsfonors also pleaded to tho action, alleging that the wreck was not 
in tho channel used by vessels running between Montreal'and Quebec, and that 
the collision was caused solely by the oarclesaness of tho persons in charge of 
the barge. The Steamship Company also pleaded to the action in warranty vf 
tho Harbor Gommissioners, alleging that' the " Ottawa" had been condemned as 
a total wreck, and sold by public auction on the 6th July, 1881, and purchased 
by E. C. Dinning ; that the purchaser undertook all responsibility oonneoted 
with the wreck, and the Steamship Company had ceased to have ony control over 
it. A light had been kept on the wreck, but thi* was done, not by theip bat by 
Dinning. Farther, that if the Harbor Commissioners oonsidered the wreck 
dangerous, it wo»' their duty to caose its removal. '■ 

It appeared that a light had been kept oo the vessel by Dinning & Co. during 
the season of navigation of 1881, and no accident happened in that year- 
yptiflw wore Bent by the Co m mi a sin n er a t o P . Torranw* A fih, « g A nt « fnr il.> 



COURT OK QJIRKN'8 BRNOU. im. 



I 



To mnc, A Vo rapli.,1 ,h„t .i„c« ,ho «.!• thoj I...1 «„ con.rol «m tho va«»| '"L"- 

7 • I Kht on th, wreck, .nd Mr. Torr.«o, .t onc« c«m.»«„l«.t«.l wHh 
. X* *«l^ "'"■""* •'"' '•'* '"^ "'-^ "'""* '''' "^"'"^ »•'— - '»•• .^ 
l!or«Uth« judgment of tlLSuporior Court (l'«pino«u, J ) 
ron.lddraDt q... to dom.ndour,jjflur.ait i« ddfeodoor, on rcoouvron.on^d.. 

lo flouvo 8a.nt.Laur«nt d.n, I. n«it du on« «„ d„u,« ^e^ „.,'„;, i,J, '^JJ ^^ ^ 

cjuat«.v.„«t-d,ui^^^.„. ,0. "Orondine." p.r la fauto ot n^ go„ o Z 
d^ftn our. q.| dUiont tonu, d, I'pntratl.n du flouvo entro Montreal Iq.^Z] 

Con.id<Jr.nt qu, lo dom.ndour n'. p.. M^n q„, ,„ dtffoqdour. fa„«nt teno. 
> «.ottrc ot en r-tonir uuo lumWro on cot ondrJit. oi ,uc oJ «,lt p.rttt ftuu 
quel accident dentil 80 plointMttrrUd; «, -"'^ I»r leut fattU 

Con.id<5r.at que le dem.ndou^ <SUit t«oa d'.voir un pilot h.blle ou .utr. 
poTHonne «p.rin.e«tdo. conn.i«.,.t le lit du flouvc o/il n.vgudt U t ' 
a^. ou tea qucfoa et particuliiroment le dit doueil. ot quo ni lul. ni vZZ ■ 
qu I .d..t .lors^ no co„„.,«.U bien le chen.1 du flouv, en ce ondroit. nl 

!ill».' ' '' ^'^'" "'• " "'"^'•"«"°'' --" '— --t" '0. " ■ 

Con«ddraDt q«. |e demandeur, dan. .« declaration, a alM^^ quil <italt ^ 
propnifre du ohaland ou barge '.L.^.," «t -qu'il a p ouWi qX'^l bm 

i de It ' " '*'"' 7 '" Propri^iros d'un vai««,au cnlbios 'ont 

le droit de por.cr qu'une Mule ot m«aie action pour dommago. cauikJ. 4 e. 

vaiwwau, par un d<$lit ou qUasi-ddlit ; . ^ ^ 

Consid^pnt que lea ddfcndour. o'nt appeW on cau«, la Compagnie nomm*,' 

coll ci f IT''" "" '^'"'"'''" ^'^'""''"P ^-P^":^ •• -«.nrg»rantTqut ' 
~ I -c. a n... en oj^u«,. au«i oommo garant, Dame Ktu Carpoutor Dinning U 
quelle, ont conteaUJ lo. ditea action, on garantie; " i/inning, le^ 

Eeimjie la dite action en .rriAre-garantio do la^ Cbmpagnie dite « The • 

tt Sp T ' *"'^ * ^^'"" Oreenahielda, MoOorkill & Gu^rfn avooir. 
4e la d<fendere<«e en arri^ir^garantie. Dame Ktt. 0. Dinning 

Kenvoie la dite action en garantiedeaCommi.salre.di. flivw drf- Montreal - 
.t?o depen. contre ce. dernier.. Unt .ur Taction on g.rantie quo^r I'Srin 

j;:ieX"f ' '•'^^'*' ' ''"''^-" ^"-^ * ^"-P' -'^'^ dV rco^ 

I»gme ddfeoderesM en garantie ; - ^ . i« uimj uom 






'^\ ' v^^ -. 





^^-.--^^L^ 


i*: 




< 


':r^H 



^M^^ 



4Jjp|P 



128 



COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, 1886. .^j^ 



^' 



CommiMloners ^' ™nvoie I'aotion prinoipale avfo d^pens; tant de U dite action prinoipale, 
of Montreal que des dites actions en garantie et en arridre-garantie, contre le demandeur 
Jo8.*RHu. principal. . J ' . 

The M?8iiui 1 ^^"^ " *'*° judgment of the Court of Review. 

and Dominion Consid^rant que les di^fendeuraj les CommiBsait'es du HAvre de MontrdaH 
Steamship Co. gont constitu^ et organis^a par la loi aux fina d'or^onner tdut riglement n<SceB- 
saire pour la plus grande sftretd et facility de la navigation du ^aint-Laurent 
, ■- liana la partie dj^signde, le port de Montreal ; 

Consid^rant que dans le cas oh il existe dea jauitancea sur lea eatix et rivages 

dan^ le port et le Hfivre de Montr<Sal, qui peuvent nuire et obetruer la naviga- 

_ . . tioHj^et en ojbstmer I'usage pour le public, le devoir des dits CommiBBairea du 

Hfivre de Montreal est de faire adopter de suite telles mesures que n^oessairea 

1 : P*"" ^^"^ dipparaitre cos nuisances et enlever cea obstiCol^s, et 4e/ placer et 

maintenir des bou^ et autres marques pour guicler le^ public navigyant sur les 

\ eaux du Saint-Laurent ; 

/ Oonsid(Sfant quo 1« pouvbir accord^ ^ux CommissaireB da Hfivre de Hootr^al 

de prdieverdes taxes et des revenuS'SOr les vai889aux.et marobandisea. passant 
dana le ohemin des eaux du fleuve, et la mesure des droits des personnes navi- 
.guant sur le Saint-Laurent; 

"s r Gonsid^rant qu'il y avait sur ia voie publique dans le fleuve Saint-Liaurent un 

*-■... embarras et obstruction oaus^ par les debris d'un vaisseau qui avait sombr^ ik 

r ' I'endrdit indiqu^ dans les eoritures du demandeur, nomm^ment via-i^vis les 

"Grondines;" 

Gonsid^rant que dans la nuit du onie au douse mai mil huit cept» qnatre-vingt- 

^-^^ deux, le bfitiment '* L. 0." navlgutf par le demandeur sur cette voie publique a 

~^^ BombrdetB'est perdu jparle fait qu'il a touchy et frapp^ cette obstruction et oCt 

e,mbarraB; 

Consid^raht que le domiuage a 6t6 caus^ parce qu'il n'avait ^t^ plac6 auoune, 
ligne de bou^, balises ou auouns des moyens indiqu^s pa)r le statut et les rdgle- 
ments des dit» Commissaires pour faire oonnattre au^ nayigateurs I'obstruction 
. qui rendait la navigatidn dangereuse & oet endroit ; 

Consid^rant quje oette obstruction et o» danger ^taient chose eonnue aux Gom- 
' miss^ires da HfiVre de Montreal ; 

Consid^rant qu'il y a en faute et ji^ligenoe de la part des Gommiasaires du 
^ Hfivre dans I'exfoution des deyoifs de leur cbai^ et qu'i raison d« cette n^gli- 
^ ^genceilssontresponsablestla toitcaus^; ^ ' . . 

Consid^rant que les dommages causes exc^dent de beauooap la somme de deux 

cent soixante et quatre piastres et .trentnet-un centins, i^ laquelle le demandeur, 

' . pour ^viter tons trouble etfVais, a r^daitsar^lamation,yfiqa^iln'estpropniStaire 

que d'nne moiti^ da dit vaisseau ; V 

V . iyonaid^rant que le demandeur avait affi:Sttf le bfitiment et en avait seal le 

^ p^ -^ eontx&lB et, |»artant, en avait^toos les droife et la responsabiliW vis-Arvia des 

' ,^_.,-''' ,.\tkni '' . *■ •".. 

s Consid^rant que le demandeur a prouv^ leikay^tiona de sa demande et que 

les Cominissairea du Hfivre n'ont paa jnstifi^ ; 




.:.i^. 



y^ 



.■jf'rfP^F.' ■ ' X 



\ 



COrjRT OF QUEKN'S BENCH, .1880. 



129 



ConsidiSraut qu il y a omur daus le dit ju^'cment du diwcpt jauvier mil Tl.o BuHmur 
huit oont quatre-viiij(t-oiiiq, lo reuvorso, et procoduiit X rcndre celui que b dite ^"^mmUmtn 
Cour do proraiiro instance auiaitdftren^re; *• ' "'^ ^a^nT'''''' 

^ -D«5ularo les dits ConjiiiiHsairos du Havre do Moritr(5al rosponaablcs onvors lo^^^ophl' Hub 
deuiandeur des doinmayes qu'il a ^fiuffeits, condaiune Ics ComiuUsuires du The Mhsissipl 
Havre do Montr,Sal h payer au dom/ndcur la sounnc de deux cent soixanto ct s^elS^Sn c« 
quatro piastres ct tfento-et-un een^na pour ses domniagos, avcc inteiot depuis 
vingt-nQrfjauvier mil huit ceu^ quatre-viogt^uatre, jour de I'Msignation, et 
les ddpens des deux Cours, di^raits 4 Messieurs Lorariger & Boaudio, avooats 
du dcmaodeur ; et saus adj.jj^er sur les demaudes en garuntie dont cetto Cour 
nVpas6td saisie par I'in^driptidD pour rdvisiori, reserve aux^ defendours, les 
Comraissaires du Havre/de Montreal, tous rccours que de droit oontre les ' 

adfondeurs eo garaotie,>t le droit de prooedor dans leur aotioQ-en garuntie tel 
qu lis aviseront. / _ , , : 

-The^potes of theilonorable Judgfe Papineau read^M Wiows : 
Le deinandeur Pursuit les defesdeurs pour domma^es causes H sa bur<'o, en- 
registr^e sous Wnom de "L.C."etqui s'est bris^e sur les restes du Steamer . ^ 

Ottawa 4cVon6 dans le lit dufleuve St. Laurent vis-i-vis'des " Grondines " 
dans la nuit^u 11 au 12 de mai' 18^2. 

II allegji^ que les defendeurs sent charges de Tentretien du fleuve St Lau- 
rent tny^ Quebec et Montreal / qu'ils avaient I'habitude d'entretcnir un bateau 
avec up(e lumiere pour indiquer I'^oueil formd par les restes de " I'Ottawa " en 
cet ej^droit ; qu'ils out n^ligd de le faire dans le temps oA le vaisseau du deman- 
deu^ s'est bns^ sur cet ^oueil et que c'est par leur faute qu'il souffre les dom- 
agesdemand^s par son action. - - 

lies defendeurs ont fait une exception dilatoire " pour obtertir un delai suffi- ^ 

.ant pour mettre en cause, The Mississippi and Dominion Steamship Company, ' 
/ prop„eta.ro de " I'Ottawa ; " cellcKsi de son cot^ a mis en cause, par action eu 
garantie Dame Etta Carpenter Dinning i qui elle avail vendu I'^pave de 
" I'Ottawa ". rest^e sous I'eau. • \ . 

Chaoune des d^fenderesses en garantie et en arridre-garantie a oonteste I'aotion 
par laquelle on I'assignait. ^ \ • 

I' yunepreuvesuffisjiyte^edommagesjusciu'a concurrence d'aumoins $335 
et peut^tre meme de $405 A $425. 

Reste a savoir si ces dommages peuvent fitre r^clam^s des defendeurs 

Ceux-oi plaident qu'ils no sont pas responsablesde I'accident eprouve par le i '' 

d^audeur ; qu'immediatement apres le naufrage de'.' I'Ottawa," ils ont notifid 
la ComiHign.e propri^taire de I'enlever : que si des lumidres y ont ^t^ plac^es ce • 4 

doit §tre par cette Compagnie : que le demandeur aurait d& s'adresser i, cette ^ 

derni^re dont on lu1 indique le bureau ; que si I'acoident a eu lieu ce doit 8tre 

par la faute ou 1 imperitie des demandeon, ou doses employes, oar I'^cueil ocoa- 
« 8ionne par I'^pave de "I'Ottawa" 6tait bien conna des navigatlurs 

Le demandeur s'appuie principalement sur la 36^ Viot. Chap. 6 Sect 19 I 



Les bouees et balises da Port de Montrta l (qui a'etend 



ja 8 qn!att-Baawn.de-Poft 



neuO serontplaceeset entretenues par la dite. Corporation (des Comiissairea 
daHfirrede Montreal), et les depense. eacouraes pour ces fin. seront pa>Z 
meme les fbnds de la Corporation. _ L , V y^^ 



Hill 



"i '■ 



:, * 



130 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



^SS'nira ^A Co'PO^t'on est autorisdo par la loi H prdlover des impdts sur les vaissCaux 

«f Montreal, qui viennent duns lo Ilftvre de Montr<!al pour subvenir iH, ses d^penses. 

Jowph^P. Hus ^° demandcur invoquo 4ussi les rt^glements des Commissaires du Havre do 

The ]l?ni8aipi .^<"''|'^"''/»PPro"^e» W» U Gouverneur et publics daas la Gaiette du Canada 

•ad Dominion <^* r<S-iinprimda en brochure «n 1879, Page 31, rdglement No. 94 et pages 43 et 

aiMiiuhip Co. 44, No. 133, dans lesquels ii est question des boudes, balises et phares du IlSvre 

• et du Port do Montreal et de certains endroita partiouliirement dangereux, au 

nombre lesquels so trouve " Le Cap ^ la Roche " oA " I'Ottawa " a sombrd, 

^^ II inyoque aussi les statu^ 12 Vict. chap. 117, rappeld par la §6 Vict. chap. 

i 6, qui a confdr^ aux Commissaires du Hfivre de Montreal tous les pouvoirs do ia 

' niaison de la Trinitd de Montrdal. 

i„ ^^"'«, •' ^'^^^ observer qiie la 31 Viet., chap. 59, section 9| qui laissait sous Ic 

controle de KMaison de Trinite de Montreal, les phares et les autres lumidres, 

balises et boudes anterieurement placdes dans le HSvre et le port de Montreal, 

a etd abroge par la 33 Victoria, chap. 8, section 3 et tous les phares flottants 

et autres lumi^res ont 6td mis sous le coiitr61e du ministre de la Marine et 

PSoheries. 

Aussi la sec. 19 de la 36ieme Vict. chap. 61 ne fait mention que dpS^boudca 

et balises qui seront entretenues par la Corporation (dea Commimires du 

Havre). II n'y. est nuUcment question d^ phares ni de lumiire^c'est ce qui 

expliquB qu'un des tdmoins employes des Commissaires du Hfivre, dft quo les 

lumi^res sent placdea par le Gouvernement et non par laS Commii&Sres du 

■ ► ' Havre. / * ^-- -.-.-. 

Nous ne voyons aucune disposition de la loi qui inipose aux ddfendeurs Ic 

devoir d'enlever les vaisseaux^dchouds dans le port o/d'y mettre des lumieres 

IM)ur avertir des dangers qu'ils peuvent occasionner la nuit. L'Etat a qui appar- 

tient en premier lieu le controle sur les fleuves/et rividres navigables, paralt 

^s'fitre rdservd le placement et I'entretien des phdres et autres lumiftres d^tindes 

& proteger la navigation de nuit et avoir impojig aux Commissaires du Hfivre le 

devoir de placer les houdes et balises qui soni les signaux de jour pour indiqjior 

le chcnal. 

Ne voyant par sur quoi reposerait la res^nsabilitd des ddfendeurs, la oour ren- 
voie I'action du demandeur avec ddwins tant d^ Taction principale quo des 
actions en garantie. 

Le demandeur a citd Brown vs. Mallett, 5 Common Bench, Eeports pa-'cs 
59»a621. ^ 

Les ddfendeurs ont oitd : AbboJft's law of Merchant Shipping, 12 Ed. P. 69. 
L'opinion de ce jurisconsulte e/t en harmonie avec le second paragraphe de 
I'artide 1056 de notre code oi^il. La ddfenderesse en srridre-garantiea citd 
White and Cresp, 10 ex-ohequ/reports P. 112; Brown and Mallett, 5 Common 
Bench Hep! P. 199. , ' 

. The notaJ of the HonoraWe Judge Sicotte in revieTT reads as follows: 

Par h^ Vict., chap. 117. La maison de la Trinitd Be Montreal fut rdorga- 
nisde, dans-le but dj&tablir des ragUgpaenta pigs convenaMea pour rdgir cetle 



/ 



partie da fleuve St. Jjlaun^nt, situdeentre le bassin de Portnouf et^l^ne pro- 



4^: - 



a — - 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 188 



188^ 




vincialo, divisant le II. et le B. C. Pouvoir est donndi k Corporation do fairc The ir.rhoar 
rorfonner tela statuta r^^glcmcnts convenables, et n^^saires pour la plus grando Sn"^?'"' 
surety, et fac.litd do la navigation du St. Laurg«i, depuie Portneuf A la li^ne ""^ 
provinciale, soit en y posant dos boudes, lumi^res, fanau. ou. marques. ° "'^'''fnS'- ^^ 

La 31Ame clause declare qu'il sera du devoir do la corporation do s'enquerir Tb« MissiMipi 
par ses officers et de s'^rer s'il est fait des empifitoments. ou s'll e;ii.te dcsSaSSSX 
nuisances, sur lea rivifires, eaux et rivages dans lo port et le hfivre de Montreal, 
et qui pourraient nuire A la navigation, ou en obstruer I'usage pour le public, et 
la corporfttfon fera adopter telles mesurcs qu'elle jugera n^cessaires pour faire 
dispartiltre les diteyiuisances, et enlever les dites obstructions 

La 36rae Vict. [1873.] n,it i la place de La Maison de la Trinity, les com- 
^ miBsaires du h&vre de MontrM — 

Par la sect. 19, il est statud que des boudes et-balises seront placdes et main- 
tcnues dans le port de Montrdal, par la corporation des Commissaires du Hfivre ; 
etquelesfraispourcefaireserontpayesamSmolesfondsdelacorporation. Le 

statut ajouteque octte corporation ne sera pas oonsiddr^e, une nouveUe corpora- 
tion. *^ 

Poavoiracoorddd'emprunterdel'argent pour lesam^liorationsdu port et de^ : 

la navigation et de prflever des droits sur les vaisseaux et les marchandises. 

11 rtsulte de ces examena des pouvoirs des d^fendeurs : lo; Que les Commis- 
saires du Hfivre, ont la haute main sur les ekux du St Laurent. lis exercent 
le pouvoir de surveillao^ qui incombe'd toute corporation poss^dant le pouvoir 
d-agiret de r^glementer pour pr^venir les accidents. 

Leur devoir sur les ^aissaux de toute espdce, et sifr lee produits passant dans le 
chemin des eaux du fleuve, est la mesure des droits des voyageurs contre la oor- 
Fration,. quant au maintiea en bon ordre, de la navigability du cbemin. 

Lesrdglesconcernant les corporations municipales sont applioables comme 
explicatives du droit commun centre toute corporation ayant la gouverne et li^ 
r^gie, de la vote publiquc. 

Art. 293. Une des regies est I'obligation de faire tenir les voies pubUques daw 
^tat reqms par la lo., de Ik d^coule la responsabUitd de tons dommages resul- \ 

tant du mauvais tftat de la voie publique. 

Ari.j791. Toute personne en demeure de faire sur la voie publique, les tra- ^ 

vaux prints par les dispositions de la loi, est responsible des dommages qui 
r^sul^tdeianouvelleex^utiondecestravaux. ' 

2o. II est constant qu'ii y avait sur la VQie publique dans le fleuve, an. 

embarrasoaus^ par les debris d'un vaisseau qui avait BombriS 4.1'eadroit indiqu€: 
dansics <5critures, et que oet embarrass k peine visible dans I'eau. basse, ne I'tftait 

plus 4 lamomdrocrue, que dans cette condition le vaisseau du demandeur 'n»yi- 
guant sur oette voic publique a sombr^J, par le fait qu'il a frapp4 et toucl,^ cek 
embarrass; et que ledemandeur a souffert les dommages qu'il reclame 

30. LedommageaiJt^oauseparoequ'a nVaitpas 6t4 plac^ de signes pv 
bouses, bal,ses,.oa autres des moyens indiqufe dans le statut et rtelements dl ' 
commiyuf>^jourfa „ ^, ;g j0^^fl^^ 1^ 

navigation dangereuse & oet endroit. v-» . ^ , 






4 



:*«'Smn 




Vff;j 



COITBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



The Harbour 4o L'obstractioD c( le dangipr ^taient ohoso oootiuo dopuis longteiiips auz 

^Jnklntreal'^o™"j'»'»'™8«^Alcur8offioior8.1 « , , 

p^^iT l^artant, il y a ou ndgligenoe et fuute de la part dea d^fondeurs dans rez^oution 

iii^'d . dcs devoirs qui leur dtuient imposes dans ia oiroonstanoo, par la loi ot parlcur 

The M^siBsipl charge, y . 

and DomiDion . . / v » ■ r ' 

StMkBfist^ipOo. A rajnJD dp cette- fuute ot de cette, n^gilgcnce, les ddfendeurs sent respoDsa- 

; I>le8 di/tort causd. v 

/ . It* ' 

D'apnis la loi sur le pilotage, o'ost chose libre depuis le statut de 1873, ez- 
coptd dm IS les cas indiquds dans le statut, ot il n'a pas t$td prouv<$ par le8,d<$fcn- 
deurs qjiM) la barge ^tiiit dani^ les cas qui rimposaient ill ndcessite d'avoir up 
pilot. ' . - '' 

Le jugemcht a considdr^ I'sbscnco du pilot, ua fait de negligence, 'qui rendaitr 

demandeur responsable du doiurooge souffert. « 

Les conimissaires, auz termed du statut, peuvent imposer la ndoessit^ du 

/.pilotage. ' Dans I'espdoe, ils n'invoquent pas cette ndoessitd comme ayant 6t& 

T^glcmentdc pareuz, alorR,'ils Ae petaveut so plaindre, si le demandeur n'a fait 

que ce que 'les autres navigateurs font dans I'abscnce durdglement ^.cet effet^ar 

Tautoritd comptStente. 

Le deuiandeur«n'08t pas negligent, quand I'autorite n'a pas jug^ la chose re- 
■quise pour la protcQiion publique, et oolle des intdrSts qu'olle a mission sp^ciale 
xlc protfiger.' 

Le demandeur doit-il iStre ddboutd, parce qu'ilja'est pas se\il propridtaire, et 
qu'il a fait retrozit do la moitid de sa rdclamatioQ, v(i que le oo-propridtaire 
D'est pas partie demanderesse. 

Les ddfendeurs SAot toujours ses ddbiteurs pour la moitid du tort qu'il a souf- 
fert; et ea payant, ils acquitterout une dette legitime, etsans danger de payer 
rdeuz fois. > ■ 

D'uilleurs I'art. 2391, C.C. est applicable dans I'espdce. Toute personne <]ui 
^affrete un bfitiment pour en avoir le contrdle et lb naviguer seul, est rdpatee en 
^tre propridtaire pepdant le temps de tel affrdiem^t, et en avoir tous les droits 
«t toute la responsabilitd relativementauxHiers. Telle est 'la ooAdition du de- 
^mandeur. Partant, il est bicn fondd & rdolamer comme il I'a fait. II a rdduit 
-«a deroande i, $264.31, pour rencontrer un^ obiection du ju|^, et il ne peut 
M)btenir''plu8 que ses conclusions. - > 

C'est de oe dernier jugement doat est appel. 

In the Superior Court, both Jlhe principal action and the action in warranty 
"were dismissed, as well as an action en arriere garantie brought by the steam- 
ship company against Dinning. The ground of judgment was that it fwas not 
^established that the Harbor Gommissionerfl were bound to have a light at the 
place of the accident. This judgment wai t«ken to Beview by Hns, and the 
CJourt of Beview reversed the decision of the'dourt below ftnd held the Harbor 
^Commissioners liable. The'proisent appcml brings up the ja^ment in review and 
, -also the judgment of the Superior Court ia so far as it dismissed the action in 
•warranty by the anmmiBwrtimw i ii g ft inrt . «lifl«faM^wi«HipV>ftmp ft ny -^^ 



TissiiB, J., diaaenting, was of opinion that the judgment in BevieiT was 
<oorreot, and should be Mofirmed'. 



^ « 



n 



.> 



»y»*i~ 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



133 



and 

Charlotte. 

Bishcr. 



DoBlON, C. J., for the majority of the court, ooDsidered that np lialTtlity Dme JombM* 
attached to the Harbor ComioiMionerB under the circumstnnces. They are not '^ "'''»"" 
a private company. They are h public corporation created for the pcrforuiando 
of certain duties. They are not obliged to put buoys to mark tlie obstrifctidjis 
in every part of the channel. There is nothing in ^he law which mokes t^ 
commissioners responsible for damages caused by an obstruction. The recourei 
of the person injured is against the person who puts the obstruction there, or 
neglects to remove it. The judgment on the appeal of the Harbor Commissioner* 
Bgainst Hub is revenjed with cosfe, and appeal of Harbor Commissioners against 
Steamship Company rejected iiith costs. 

The Hon. Judge Tessier, /?iM. . ^ 



Abbott, Tait & Abbott, for the appellants. 

Lunn dk Cramp, for the Miss, and Dom. S. S. Co. 

Loranger <fe Beaudin, for the respondent. 



Judgment reversed'..' 



■1 



^ COURT OF QUEENS BENCa 

(appial sidb). 

JiONTBBAL, <(TH 8BPTBMBBB, 1865. 
Coram The Hon. justice Atlwin, DoVAt, Mbeidith, and Mokdelit, ilf J. 
. DAMB JOSBPHTB AMJiAOLT, V 

{D^oniant ih th* Court htlow) i 

■ ' " ,., y:. AipiLLAHT;. . 

< OHAREO^^TB PISHBR. 

'• {P^mntif in the Court belMD,') 

•>■ RispoiiDnt. 

Hypoiheeary acHon.-^Defmdant tayt he it not the owner or ditenteur of the^ 
premitet.—Plea dUmitted, <u no indication is mac^e of the real Xfumer »^ 
the land. <. . • I ' 

Theaotion of (he respopdent was hypothecary against the defendant as dH^teitf^ 
of a lot 6f land charged in fayor of the respomleDt with the payfneot of jSsft* 
158. Od., of principal, and £50 48. 4d., inter^t on the said ptinoipal som fWua - 
Ist May, 1849, to Ist May, 1861, and also interest i>n the sajd princiMlsan 
till paid, transferred to the respondeat hy Samuel H. Anderson. 10th JuraarT 
1850(D.B.Papinea«,N.P.) . | ^ '''• 

The appe^llant met this action by two pleas : . r 

\ f Jl^*"" ^'** in-effeot alleged ^nteroZia that the defendant was not and perer 
had been owner or ditenteur of the promises mentioned in the plaintiflPs declata- 
Uon. That the defeodantrs kte husband, John Sutherland, in his life-ti^e va» 
otner of the real «tate io^qoestion, that he died without issne in ISSsT after 
^^y ".'^^ ?''.*'"' by which the defendantwj g^apjwinted^tn «%iinjit k 
Jwe. Tbat by Jier marriage^ntraot with the said John Satherknd,doftndaBk 



■m 



\^^-^s 



• ^ r- 



■h 



134 



COURT OP QUERN'S BEIfGH, 1886 



® Amtuli''* ""' *'°''"°'^ *" ^"''« «»k «f *'»« ««'»to ^50 per annum, as long as she romainod 
and fiingle : that she had^aocordingly since her husband's death, rented the said real 



<Jharlott« 
Ftfher 



estate, and kept the same in repair, silbjoct to the elaiius of the lieirs off her 
husband. That up to this period, tho?o heirs had not appeared to claim the 
succession, and she had never been callpd upon to give up the mafiagemcnt of 
the said estate. '^ . - . a ' 

■y Wherefore, &o. ^ * " % ^ ' 

The {c«>/i(/ plea was, the (i^/e««e en /ai7. ' ,. 

The plaintiff answered the first plea by praying acte of the declaration of the ' 
defendant in her said pica, that sUe had tflwaye since the death of her said 
husband; John Sutherland, rented the said real estate, an,4 then said that the 
defendant had always since the .death of her' said husband held and possessed 
and enjoyed the immoveable property described in plaintiffs' declaration, as , 
'propaetor, and had always drawn tijc reiits, issues, and profits thereof as ' 
proprietor : that in fact the said John Sutherland had at the time of his decease 
no heirs but the defendaqfc, who, at the decease of her said husband, did accept 
of his estate and succession, an!" hath since held and enjoyed the j;iame as 
proprietor, and the plaintiff said that, saye and exce|it as therein expressly 
admitted^ all the allegations, of said plea were untrue. 
^, .The judgment of the Superior Court (Monk,' J.) dismissed the plea, as no 
indication is made of^ the real owner of the laad^ • . 
^ ^t js ii> evidence that the defendant was in possession of thfe land in question, 
and drew the.rents as proprietor ; that her husband died without issue, and othfer 
hcire^ not^ proved to exist. " If the defendant wure only holder of the land in 
thyhme of another it was her duty to set out in her plea specifically for whom 
8h6 held, giving his name, residence, and occupation, in order that the plaintiff 
^ miglit have it in his power to instit^te an hypothecary actlQn against him. 
. Meanwhile the plaintiff was bound to bring his action against the defendant as 
d6UtUeur, who has failed to indicate any^other.detenteur o^ propcietor. 
Pothier : Domaine, n. 298." 

L'action de Mvei^dication cloit Stre intent^e centre oelui qui possAde Is obose. , 
II knit de 14, que quand voi«9 trouvez quelqu'un en possession de votre heritage, 
Ja demande ep revendioation que vous formez contra Ini est Takibloment formed, 
^ 'qttoiqu'il le tienhe k ferme d'line autre personne; mais aussitSt que oe fermier 
vous a ddclar^. qu'il ne possede^ dans son nom, vous devez faite assigner son 
bailleur, dont il est oblig^ de vous\ndiquer le nom etdemeure. 
Guyot : Beycndicatiun, p. 619. 

If it be pleaded by exception, that tKere are other heirs, such plea must name 
, athero, indicate their place of residence, Vnd stata them to be alive. 
Y^^ V. Charpentier. ' \<P 

3lS^Tue de Leg : (Quebec) 895. ' - v 

' ^ ' Judgment confirmed. 

i>unfo/> <{r .Srotone, for the appellant. ' " 

' ^:yftVr«nce < fe J forr t i, for th ft r n npond g nt. ' — 






SUPKillOR COUKT, 1886. 



13S 



r-. 



SUPERIOR COURT. 

MONTRKAL, MAY 28x11, 1886. 

Present : Mr. Justice Johnson. 
JAMES A. CANTLIE ir al./ 

• vs. 



J. A. Oantn»' 
«t ftl, 

Tb^ CoatK 
o6ok Cottoc> 



Ptainlif. 



>,-TnE COATIOOOK. COTTON doMPANVr 

.^'■■- ■ . ^ • / 

' ' / Defyndant. 

Hud : lst.-Agency, whether coaetituted for'a valuable /onaideration or not, is al«fay,. 
revocable at tha will of ttietnaadutor. / ^ ~""»/» 

^^'^'~'^^l^^>ll!'Z'^^^'^?^ to circra^ces/ a rigW to {ndemnity for actual 
■ loss suffered by biiq through the rfttocaU6n, - ^ 

3rd:-L083of proflU inJfUuro canaot enter |to the computation of such daifaages. 
Peb Co^lAM.-Tl.irm4n Bctioa which Ae pWntift (who were the defen- 
dants agents for the sale of c^tfoa goods Lnufacturek by the latter at their 
mills) bring against them to got damages A having been dismissed from thb 
agehoy Thqfe are questions of law and 4Lot. The We^tion of law, or the 
prinoi^l one, is whether the appotntment i agents was/ revocable at the will of 
the principals, ani what was the effeotsof tl f rei^tiof upon the rights of tho 
plaintiffs. The facts as set forth in the pl^dings^have reference Erst of all to 
the appointment and the dismissal, and then to the dimages, and, further, to 
the alleged indcbtness of tho agents to their prinoip.l formatters arising duribs 
the agency, and for which incidental demands are made.! Both the appointment 
and the conditions of it, as well as the disiXal, arc Uidcnced by tho corres- 
pondence. T ' V. 

The facts* are declared on by the plaintiffs\ who further allege that they ac- 
cepted the agency and immediately subscribed for 810,000 in the stock of said 
company and paid the first call thereon, amounting to $1,000, on the 8th April 
1880, as appears by the receipt fyled. (PlaintiflF:)' exhibit No. 7) . ' 

That the plaiatiflFs immediately on flubstiribing sucTi stock and on making said 
payment, which was the consideration of their being appointed sales' agent of 
the cdhipany defendant, commenced to act as sales' agent of the company on the 
terms menUoned in their, letter of the 24th December, 1879, and acted as such 
Mies agent.in Montreal up till the 6th day' of August, ,1881, when they were 
Illegally and without cause, and in violation of the tern* of the agreement under; 
which they w6re appointed sales'.agent of the said odfeipafly, dismissed from the- 
agency which they l^jid acquired for a valuable oonsiteSion, as wiU appear on 
ref^reno, to the letter from tho defendant* tppi^ntifr. (Plaintife' exhibit J 

That plaintiffs, on the 17thday of August, l^BSl,!^ letter addressed to, and- 
• reoeivted by^efendanta, formally tendered to the company a continuation of their 
!^'" ?!"!f,''y, ^"^ ""^ no.tified the (iompany tfeat they would be held res- 
■i««-tble for all domngea, m event of their 8ervioern6tTS5|l^tei;TnTthifc^ 



/■ 



m! 



*f 



■*% 



ise 



SUPERIOR COURT, 1886. 



The CmU- 

<oook Uotton 

Cmufmaj* 



•'• A- OantUej thoy would take the neoewnry iteps to enforoe their righta under the agreement 
by whieh they had boon appointed uloa' agent. 

Thftt notwithitanding 8uoh tender, the derundants, on the 6th of August, 
1881; 'Without oauw and without notioe, and in violation of the t^nia of laid 
agroomont illegally disroiaaed plaintifTa from aaid office and position. / 

That the company defendant hath ever ainoe oontinued to manufaoture goods 
and to sell at Montreal aforesaid and elsbwherQ the product of the said mill 
through other sources and still continiieth to do so in violation of the terms of 
said agreement. Whereby plaintiffa have suflered damages to the extent of f 10,i 
000, the amount of profits, oomminsions and rewards of right payable to them, 
«nd which they would have earned by the selling, for them of the product of the 
mill under the terms of the agreement under whush they were appointed, and 
for damages suffered by plaintiffs by reason of defeadanta' violation of the terms 
-of mid agreement. > / , 



That the plaintiffs, by reason of their unjust and illegal dismissal, suffered flir- 
ther damages to the extent of $5,000, .in their credit and reputation Jll)|2||i$X3» 
moneys and salaries expended by th^m in providing a staff df clerks and tt'avel- 
lers for the purpose of selling the product of the mill of company defendant] and 
for otber necessary and incidental expenses connected therewith. 

Plaintiffs conclude by asking for av condemnation ogains^ defendants for the 
sum of $15,000. I 

The defendants pleaded, Ist, a general denial ; 2ndly, that it is true plain- 
tiffs applied for the agency as appears by their exhibit No. 2, on condition that 
they subscribed $10,000 in the capital stock of the company, which they never 
did ; that the' receipt for the firatjnstalment of $1,000 on said subscription of 
$10,000 was signed b^the secretary-treasurer of the company without authority, 
and that this payment of $l,bOO was imputed at the request of plaintiffs in pairt 
payment of $4,000; that the defendants were by law entitled to revoke at apy 
time at their own pleasure, and without being bound to show oause^ the said ' 
agency given to plaintiffs for the sale of the goods manufootured by them, but 
they had the best of reasons for revoking said agency, ils plaintiffs sold and per- 
sisted in selling goods for months before they^wcfe and could be manufaetured, 
in violation of instructions ; that during said' agency they persisted in charging 
for diver* items of interest, discount and commission to which they were not 
entitled iii virtue of said agreement, and that they persisted .in refusing to 
Tender to d«fenaant8 an account of portion of the proceeds of saii^ales which 
they were boMd to rounder ; that they did not sell the goods at ^e vest prices 
to the damage of the defendants, and have by such conduct brought on them- 
selves the revocation of the agency. 

Defendants also *filed an incidental demand for $1,688.09, setting up the 
-eommissioii plaintiffs entitled to 1^ per oent<- without and 3|^ per cent, with 
gnarantee, and charging them with rendering idcorreot accounts containing 
overcharges and improper items. The plaintiffs were instructed to make their 
.-sales of goods to' date from the delivery of the same at the mill, making the 
average date of the sales of each month the 15th of such month, but that they 
[iei Kts 'taterdste; HtilBteB vaiynig flrom Ave diyr to one moDt 




^ 




•-■^■^ 



SUPERIOR COURT, 1886. 



187 



"».+• 



-%. 



■/• 



I// 



Jft«r «ld mr.ge d.ufor whg#i. oon,p«ny h.Teth. right to cUia interat .tX A. OmUA. 
^ p«rce«»., being the r«t«<!htrgt<lbjpl.1ntift ferouhon tueh >«!••. TUca "/' 
||e |»ot up « wriM of overohargcn, •mong.l othort of » guarantoo oommiwW Th«(?o««- 
i^rnotifie.tion given after their dUn,i«i»l oa the 13th daj of August, 1881, TowmIT 
thttplaintiiTiMeumedtherUkoD anohHalea. b . . vg«rmiiy. 

ThoM overchargw, claimed amomiied to |1 ,688.09; and the right was rcacrveJ • * 

. V u> nmke Airther olaiina. ^r 

tThe anawera to the pl«ae|nd t^ plena to the ineidental demand wore to the 

> J!« lii*' ?'•'".''?•''"« °''»>fl«'» tb»t ihoy woqW.get the agonoj if the, acqurcd 

• 410,000 aubaoription ; that aatd ^ubwiption wa^mado good and paid to 'th» 

oonpany ; that plaintiffiTpaid tbc/firat oall on said aubaoriptioD of flO 000 oa 

the 7th April 188.UHHppoars*y oxhibii.N... Tproduoed, and afterwards, W»r 

.bo.t the 30th W, 1880/ «,ld thirty aharoa f wit \ 13,000 of their ateok t6 

_ OoorgoSteph^o/ten ahurea; ll.oaO of t^r atook to J, ». McLaehlan and 

' " '"'«°^»*«^«' •' »2.000 of their stoek to D. A.. Smith ob the 7th May, 1880 • 

JbaTihose shares so sold formed part of plaintil^^ origiual subscription 

That these genUrtuen joined the company oWUr^y through the pUintiflF'a 
influence, and that defendants were notifiea of thk and approved of it. Th«t 
after the eiity^ shares had boon transferred to the 8aid^ gentlemen the amounts 
paid by^plaintiffs as calls on their original subscription of 010,000 Was imputed 
on the forty shares remaining, and that it was immaterialto the company whether 
plaintiffs or their friends held the stock, so long as the company got the benefit 
of the subscription, which they .did. ' 

That account sales were regularly rendered and accepted without exception 
or objeetioa until after the institution of the proscut action; that the prices 
were fixed b^ defendants and the goods were sold for the market prices, ancUhe 
agency was ourried on throughput in the customary uTanner. 

.,^I!L'o", *•*" '"*"*'* * Bupplomentory incidental demand "^as filed, lelliming 
|1,3J6 31, on tho grpuad that plaintiflfo had been making cash sales ?nd yei 
obarging a guarantee oommidslon on such sales, as tho company, Ibr the first 
time, found fiom the evidence of Simpson, pluintiff.' bookkoeper; that goods of 
the value of $91,418.30 were not sold on"'eredit, but wei* paid for in c Ih, on a 
cash discount varying from 2 to 2i ^ricent., as appeU by statement A W 
produced, that over and above s«id calOdiseount the gu^antie eomnlissionX 
dj per cont. was charged; that the coiSpany are entitled to the benefit of said 
settlement, and that in charging said discount And guarantee commission the 
plaiuti^s have overcharged the sum of «1,396.31, as stated in exhibit A 47, and 
this with interest— in all $1,679. 32 is claimed. . 

Ahd thb supplementary incidental demand was answered, first, by a d4fenu 
er^/ait ; second, that all the goods were sold on a guarantee commission of 3i 
percent, on the usual cotton terms, to wit, on a credit of three months; that 
plaintiffs paid the. company on or before the 15th of each month for all goods 
sold dunog the previous month; and settled for the same before they, themselves, 
were paid fpr such goods ; that plaintiffs' guaranteed tho prices of aU the good^. 
Which were sold and invoiced in their names ; that they had the right to allow - 






V 



fVA 



188 



SUrKRIOR COURT, 18fl6. 



■0. A. CImUI* diMount for propaymant if th«y ohnte, and to ebai^ tha ffunrantso eom mlaaion ; 
Tt. that th« af(anojr could not hnro boon onrriod on uoloaa thia had botm dona ; that uto 
^^ OoTton "*'<'""'•'• *•" *'• i^'ptod, and not diaputed, pravioua Ho tho ipatitatioa of thU 
'Oaatpanjr. action. / 

Thua tbo opn^lntinont and ita oonditiona, aa well oa tho ntvooation of it, ho 
bold to be proT^, i.e., tlioft wa<i an nppointniont of agunia without any delorminato 
period ; their fomunorntiun wan to bo by oornmioaion on aalea, and a condition pf 
the plaintiffif jotting tho appointmont waa that they abould tako $10,000 of tho 
oompany'a/Btook. 

Autbofltiea waa very eztonaivoly ottod at tho argument, and both ,partiea aooni 
to mo t^have put their oa«e without oompletc' aoouraoy. They both any thuro 
arooiiiy two (|ueationH : Fimt, whothor the ngenoy waa rovoeablo at tho will o 
the oobipany ; and sooondly, if it ia not, whetlier they ahow a nuffioiont oouao for 
it. /It nppoara to mo that if it waa an al^noluto power of revocation that yrtm 
cxcrcim^d, there would bo no use in enquiring why it waa used, an tho OKoroiae of 
a4i/nbHoluto riji;ht can entail no rcaponHibility. I think, however, thoro ia a quea. 
tidn more pertinent thon either. If'rovooable, can tbo revocation bo oxorolsod 
in thin cnac, even if the nbftolute power cxinta, without entailini; oonaoquenooa in 
the wuy of indemnity for ootual Ions ooonaioned to the other party under nil tho 
clircumstahccs wjiichmay or may not have the ciTect of modifying tho righta of 
. portios. ■ Thatll a^mfxed quoation of law and fuot , and I believe will bo found 
to bo the true quoation hure. A vuindut in itself is, of course, OHSontially 
rovocnblo at will but if this arrangement, call it what you will, was one by 
which tho principal confided his interests in certain particular^ to agents who 

, accepted this oonfi jenoe and were to bo paid by oomminsions for thoir services, 
we need bo nt no loss for tho prinoiplos that are to govern tho matter^ I have 
considered tho Inw, and the outhorltios cited, and I have oome to the conclusion 
that the law is this: 1. A manc^ut is essentially revocable nt will. 2. That they are 
mmulntt or arrangement involving fnandat whioh are irrevocable, as where the 
mandtttare is procurator in rem mam, or where there is another contract between 
(wo parties which renders mandat necessary for its execution. There are others, 
' again, such as the mandat laldrie, which I take to be tho case here, though tho 
remuneration waa to be a fixed commission on sales, and which, while they do 
not cease to bo revocable, may nevertheless be subject to an obligation aaaupied 
tacitly in consequenco t>f the oiroumstances known to the partiea of indemnifying 
the agent for any^ctual loss Buffered, and that they may be seen to have been eon. 

.tem plated at the time the appoihtment was made. All the standard authorities 
havebeeti referred' to. Boiloux'aoomm. o. o., which J did not hear referred to, 
iir oh. 4, '* des diff6rentea manidres fllgnt Id mandat finit,' says in a few words 
what others say in many, that even if a salary haft been stipulatodj the mandat 
ia revocable because it is a confidence, and even whore it has been bargained that 

>the salary is to depend on the succesa of the agent in a fixed delay, even that 
would not destroy the right to revoke. "Cela ne auffit pas pour enlever au 
mandant le droit de r^voquer la procuration, quand b^n lui semble, ii la charge 

, itoutefois, d'indem&iser le mandatnire." The principle of indemnity to the agent 



^ 




-,'■«-» 



'-N 



SUPERIOR COURT; 1886. 



139 



nJopttd by the oonmonUton, I. ^.mrtimw, .nd |»«h«p, TroneouMj, lllu,tr.todJ. A 

0. 4 on .rt. 2,003. note 5 : " L„ oommi. In.dr«««<« o«t rdfoo.blo & volont^ o'ett Tb. «5o^ 

1" aui* r "!^j;' "•" "" """"''""' ^'"'" d«.p,„ge.i„,.rdr. p;„ri '^s^r 

p^f quo I«. c«u«nr«i»oo..lo„. la the -o.-. of 'the clerk, however, there 1. ^^ 

tl..« d.ffo„noe tb.t the lo« i. more easily .«„rt.i„ed a, clerk, .re Ronerally ' 
* .ployed by h« „.o„th or .he y.r, .„d Laurbnt, « will be ««n b^ a,d bye ^ \ 

.he agent for lo-a by te relocation, we find in Laurent. ,ol. 28. art. 9., et '4 ' 

At«rt96 heaay,: " Lq m,ndat flnit par la rivoeation du mand.taire. Aaz 
t.r«e-de I'.rtiele 2.004 (which In the aame aa our article 1766 0.0.) fe Ind." " 
pout rdvoquer » procuration, quand bon lut aomble. *♦*♦*♦ * ..U„rauol 

tnTutr?;'"''"^ "*''"""'"'• «•*""*»- hlmoconfle JinLt/-^ 
! . 1 fl " T"" """"^"^'""l" q«° ool-i-oi n'e.^ re«tora ehar«d qu'auUAl 
<,uc la confiancc qu. lui a 6i6 aocordie contiouera, car Ic man.IanWa^Nne ^I 
prpe^i.<$, n. A temp, le plein-exercioe de .e, droit., ct le mand.t ceLe q„. J 
1 pla.t au mnuJant de notifier «,n changomont do volant*^. II f«ut ajouter J 
e .nan at so donne dan. I'intdrOt. unique d„ n,a„d,nt ; eW«,„ aff.iro quir ' 
lobjijdu nioftdat .1 dolt done .vvoir le droit d'arrOtcr rexcSouticta du mUat. 
quand .1 oharigo d-.vi.. ou que m in.dr6t.«, modlBent. Le mldu.airo rend 
un service au mandant ; or un wrvice A rendre no ,on,titue pna un droic ; done lo ' 
m data,re n a ,«^e droit A oppo^r «« mandant. quani celui-ci declare oa 

Ide" "uZ^r" T """'""' "" '*"'•' "'^ '''"' P'"" 1"^ "^^ """"'•»»'™ '« >"l ^ 
rende. II t. dst pa. ndoe««„ro que le n.a„dan^ motive na r<$vooati6n, I'article 

d(5clare qu'.l pout rdvoquer .a procamtion quand bon lui ^^rable.'iloBC .nn, 

onncr aucun-^otifj o:e«t un .droit pour le mandayt, o. il en L commo 

««!L^f * •'"* "'"'!,'''®°"''^ 'l""'^ »» '"^'••J'''' «»» gr-tuit. et c-Sst oo Vlo code 
uppoae toujour.; line fa.t que oonsacrer le. rc^le. tradiUonolle., or/dans I'an- 
cen drou, le aandat 6t.itgratuit de-«,n ess,nse,de sorte quo le mandatAire n'avaU 
aucunor.,«n de . oppo«r Auno «Svooation qui le ddlivraiten rdalitd d'ui.acharge 
1> .pi^s le code civil, le mandatpeutStre 8«lari<$, e.^W«t^uvent, " and w it may 

drorirrr''.^"" "*•''''''•''•> "^^^-t-;. deJ^olr'e 
droit abwlu de rfvooat.on re^o.t «>n application quand le mind^taire eat .alapW. 

conteatdo. I-* >o« neduittngue pa, entre 1* mand.tgr.tuit et/e.mndat salarid: / 

dLr» r i* ^T?""' P"''*»"'" "'*■* P" I«"°" * ••i»t«rpr«te d'introduire ^ 
d s^d.8t.nct.on. d.ns 1. loi. L. l^giriateur. aurait peut^tr. da distinguer dan. 

qu^ tout mandant « poar objet priaoip.1 I'int^rtt du mandat; si le mandataire 
2»t «•> Balaire. eel. h'empeohe pa, qa.'irf«,se la eho«, pourJe m.nd.nt, et In 
«>u nom, on pourrwt wjuleinent dem.nder si le mandant qui Wvoque le maodat 




/ 






uA- 



<.K1 



ir^ 



IP- 







'y^ '■'-;.'.' 



■^ V t 



>£-.; 



• 1 



140 



fiUPRRlOH CX>URT, 18M. 



J. A. C«alli«n« lui Uoiva p«M una itiddmniUi §n prinoipo, non ; ettn rtftulia tion tarniM 
•bauliiK (]•' la Ini. Lu lUdmUitt r4v(M]tM l« niaiiJui <|uand l|(iii lui Minblu. lit 

Aiimi In tn«ni)an( nterim 



vs. 
coi)k ('uUon 

Co«|MUI/. 



I-.. 



./ 



loi irftjunio nuauiia ri!iMrv0 tu fuvflur du itiatiiJuUinh 

un droit, ill Ofllui qui umi d'un droit, n« fuil tori 4 patmtnua. II n'oiit pan wm4 
tain tort au nnndiitairo qu'il r^voquo ; oolui-ei out NuUrM 4 raiNon du Mr«io« 
qa'il rcml , n'il na ruiid jtlux d« iwrviatt il ii« |Mut ftliH rdolniiior do naluint." 

In Nil. Ui Mr. liuuruiit obnurvm that tlio upplioulioii oftltftiut priiioiplnii ii not 
without liiiBQulty i that tliouKh^lh* law ■eem't to uonaidur titu aj^nojr ia a very 
iM00nd»ry oiAtiar Fur the agant — a niura aooideut In hia lif«, auub a view ia not 
alwaya oxiiot; nnd ho uolioiM tlio oiuo of the olork, and aiikit it' it would b« junt 
^to diaoh.tr^e him without ipdvniiiity. Ilu unnwura tliiit tliu law givca him no 
iodamftity. " Lu loi no lui on donno pita ; il no peat done y avoir droit qu'ao. 
vertu d'liiiu oonvanlion oipraaao on taoita." 

The luithor then giHm on to notioo how Iha aubjcol wua treated by the Cour 
^e dumdiion in doaliii^ with a jud^fiuetit tj^ tlto court at ('dinar, 3iat July, 
18fi6, whloh held un a^Q^t entitled to an Indemnity un iho ground that by the 
manifeKi intention of tho partiaa the a^ut waa to koop hit plaoo unksa he 
forfoitod it 8y uiiKOonduot. 

The Cour do Carnation held that "it oat do In nature du niundat quo lo 
niandant puiaMo r^voquer aa proouratiou quitnd boa lui^ aeiublo / ut I'oxoroiou 
legitime <l« oo droit no lo aoumot k auouni doiumnguH-intArttt Onvora lo uiandn- 
tttire. Miiia aucuno dixpoaiiiou du U loi no ddt'ond do niodiftor lo oonlrat do 
luandat pirdoa ooriventioua purtioulit^reN, il eat dnno luiaiblo aux partioM do 
•tiptilor quo b proouration ne pourra ttro r^voquu^ anni que lo niandatuiro 
revive uoo indooinit^; nur oo point il ne aaurait y avoir do douto. Main Cuut il 
quo outto ooiivootion Moil oxproMrw? Non, puiHquo lo oOniwntoiuuut dua parties 
pout Otri! tiioite," * ^' < ,,fc .■ y 

Then Mr. Liurcnt gooa on to oritioiao the jinj^innnt of tho Court at Ootmnr. 
Ho ftndit that tho Court thnrc granted lUi ihdcmnity in turum that weto too 
ubaolutu, and ho n^ka : " N'ant-oe puM ronveraer lu ruglo que I'art. 2004 (Stabljit? 
La loi dit que U niandant pout rdvgiquor 4 volontii lo mandatairo, ot la Cour dit 
qu'il no pout lo rtfvoqutrr qu'on rindoniniHimt ; oo qui rOHtreint Min^uliAroniont lo. 
pouvoir absolu du niandant." Aud he finds tho Colniar judgment inoouMiHtont 
and oontradiotory : " La d^oittion do la Cour ost oontradiotoire ; elle tetonnnlt au 
tnandant le poavoir ab.iolu do revocation, et olio uc lui puriiict do I'dzoroor sans 
indemnity quo pottr onase legitime. £n nSalitd la Cour opnfond le mandat avoo 
fo louage d'industrit;, ot cllo nppliquo au niandutairo lo principo quo la juriapfu- 
denoe a oonaaord eo favour dod oommis.!' Tb« judgiaont of the Cour do 
Gaasattoo finally decided thot tho Court of Colmar had violated no prinoipio of 
bw in findiop; that under tho oircumstanoes the prinoipals should iudemnify 
their agent whom they had dismisHed. ''' 

Laurent, No. 99, ooooludos : " Tela soot loa Vraia prinoipos. En rabaenoe 
d'one eonvention, le mandant eonaerve le droit absolu de rdvooatioD sans indein- 
Dil6 aaouoe. Lie mandataire n'a done droit 4 une indemojte, qu'eu prouvant 
qa'elle lui a ^t^ promise par d^rogatioo k la loi. Ba admettnot que oette 




?a&M^!.A,- 



. »i, ^f^^^' 7w- ^i-T' !(5?wy t^ij .r-f t ^^ 



supKHiou couirr, isee. 



141 



ddmjfatlon pniuA «ir« itoUt, Ta po«r <i« Oaimitlon tmt <I<IJ4 .ur U ^rt« hn ootr J A CtoUit 
CMion. .juVII.) rail nux n<»n«Mii4^ Ja J, ,b rtWIlo ; oonoMiiion. que |o |<!«i,l„t«ur •*„**• 
^ miraU clA r«ir«. Toajouw mMI qu'iT di1p«n.l «!«,. jq^,., du Mi dif ddoidt-r *"» Owll- 

Th«ro oa,, bo little .lifflcultj,"! think, in npplyin^r thow principle, to the o.»o 
In hand. We hiiv. to deal with • mtmiaain „ttnrU. The riKht of revooation 
IN ttlMoliitfl notwilliNtnndintt. 

No indomnUy wa« «tipu1atml eipreMJy : What do th« oiroun«t«no« .how tho 
iiitontion of the partie.. t.)4w.vo Im...., i* In it p«««iblo that tho prineipaJN hero 
could h.vo thouKht that «uoh eo agnnoj waa to bo undertaken without propara. 
UOD or oxp<M.M«? MuH there not have boon a tloit derogation from the rigid 
rule of law that no indemnity eould b« aaVl ? 1 think thoae .,uoatiooa mu.t 

Li. aoHwered in fuvorof tlie pliiintiff^: and. therefore, th»t though tho dofendunt. ~" 

hod a right 10 revoke the ugenoy, they niu^t llidriniT^fy the agenta for any actuol 
loM that In proved. 

The danrnge. alU^od nro « 15,000 ; that la, they aay tho dofendanU have ever 
.inoe tho revocation continued tb uiunufiioture goods and aell them thtough 
otiicrH,and have thon-by eauaod Janiugo lb pl,.iutifr« of »10,000,,aa being tho ' 
aujount of the pfofitn ..r commiasioa which they would have earned on the ' - " 
wiling ot ^lofendanta' gooda. 
. That, moreover, plaintiffs, by rcnHon of their unjuat dianiiaaal, aufferod ft, 
further damage of 8R.000 to-thoir credit and reputation, and in \m from 
«.'ilaricB paid in providii^ k gMff of on.ployaQg to aoll aaid goods. ^ . . 

As to damages f«f the loss of pr6lit8 in /uturo, after tho cessation of tho 
•n'.'enoy, I hold th»t bylaw they are out of the ({uoation in «uch u Ctt«o aa this. 
It the nght of rcvoi»«tion oxi«tod (>u.d boyond all doubt it did eiist, oven in 
the oa.so of the mmdut ml,in6) tho aorvioca of the mamiataire ceased tho 
momeut It was notiflod, and tho>alary or coramiBBion oea«,d with it. Aa to tho 
other two hcada of damage, vii., lo«. of credit, and actual loss in tho way o« ' 
money expended to provide for tho carrying out of tho buainesa, there j. nd - 
evidoneo, whatever, to prove either the one or tho other. There was no term 
fixed for tl.ia agency; no duration, aa in the cane of Bhodes v8.'Porwood, and do 
bargain, aa waa held in that oaao, that if tho principal's business was carried on 
the plaintiffs would got a boneBt out of it. There was clearly no sale of this \^ 

"jrenoy. The 810,000 was paid for the stock, not for thrfagoiioy, and the stock 
Itself wont to tho plaintiffs and tho other gentlemen whom they got to take it. * ^ 

It 18 true tho company may have got tho money, but they gave the ittoek for it! . W 

Tho subscription had its own consideration in tho stock itself, which, I pro^ 
sume, was an equivalent for it, and whether tho condition of subscribing wad 
imposed merely with a ffew of making tho agenta interested in tho welfare of • ,. 

the company, or for some other reason, the subscription was certainly not 

treated by tho parties as making tho agency an agency for value ; hod it been > ° '^ 

«o, the plaintiffs would have made it a stipulation that the agency should be - ^ 
eontmued for a determinate period. It is, of cQurse. evident that the agency ''^- * ^ 

JPNi, Vol.. 30 - yo. g/ ^ =^ 



4^, 



1 



iXJHp — ■ i Twjy* "^ 



:^- 



^ 



/) 



' 142 



^ SUPERIOR COURT, 1886. 



J. A. Oantliewaa not intended to bo perpetual ; when, then, vtras it to end, if not at the will 
*^ *'■ of the mandator ? In the case of Rhodes vs. Forwood, H. L, 47 L. J. R., Q. R 
Tbf- Coatt^ 396-406, cited by plaintiffs, the agreement was' express that the -agent should be ' 
"ooDipai'iy." employed for a term of Seven years. It wos, nevertheless, held that the action 
by the agent for damages resulting from the revocation of the agency was not 
Uaaintainable, the cause of revocation being that the mandator bad decided to? 
sell the property which was the subject matter of the agency. 

What I hold, then, is that, in principle, tbe plaintiffs' action is right. That 
the circumstances show that there was an evident derogation from tbe strict 
^ ■. principle that the revocation could take place without indemnity, but I, also 

hold that prospective profits or commissions after tbe revocatioa cannot ' be 
allowed, and that, as regards either tbe loss of ctedit or actual outlay for carry- 
ing out the agency, there is no proof. The action mighlThave been maintained 
~~ for these if they had been proved. Ttie position of the parties, therefore, is 
Bimply this: the defendants bad a right to revoke, and the plaintiffs had a right, 
to be indemnified,- but. they have failed to prove what their loss is. There is 
only one witness, who speaks in general terms of 910,009 damages^tbat is Mr. 
Simpson — but he means the. loss of pi'ofits whicji are not available. The plain- 
\ ' tiffs' action, therefore, must be dismissed. We have now to look at the incid- 

ental demands. The defendants, after pleading to the action, set up two claims 
^ ugaiudt the plaintiffs, one for $1,5'88 and a supplementary one for $1,395. The 

first is made up of items, six in number, for rebate of interest alleged to be 
wrongfully charged, and for overcharges of discount on cash sales and of rates 
t)f discount on notes in December, 1880, and guarantee commissions said to be 
overcharged, »nd allowances made to customers withc^ut authority. The second 
or supplementary demand is for overcjiarges for commissions on alleged cash 
sales treated as if thoy had been sales on credit. • 

To verify these purticular items of account is the proper 'business of an ' 
accouutuiit, and under articles 321, 32:j and 340, C. P., before deciding on the 
; law of these pretensions, the court refers these items toi an accountant to report. 
i>?(H^p (£r Z^man, attorneys for plaintiffs. , ~ 

Beique, McGoun & Emard, attorneys for defendants. 



,T " 



y 



X 



COUR DU BANC DB LA REINB, 1886, 
COUU DU BANCDE LA REINB. 



143 



r 



Bn Appel. * 

MONTREAL. 8 AVRIL 18*. 



La Ebinqiie 
Ville-)larie, 
ct 
^ Denis Viger 

Pr^*nts:-Sir A. A. Dobion. Jage^n-Chcf, eU^on. jugen Monk, Ikss.!, J- T^'RobU 

Cross, et Babt. , taiUeet»L 

■ '- -^A BANQUE VI^iilARIJ!;, ' f s V- 

■ \'.-.'. DENIS VIGER et AL. i 

, '^ ^^'''"'"Ofanlt en Cour Injfyieure)j 

BT Appblants, 

•f- T. fi. ROBITAILLE et AL. • 

*^ " (■^Of'ff'lontt en Cour Itifirieure), * ' 

— - •• . » ■ . iNTlUfes 

, avec oelui dea heritors out rinT. ^ ?*'"""»'"« «'» P«« ^te confondu . 

2106, C. C.) reprcaeDtantB l«ga« du defunt j (Arts. 743, 879, 

■ partiouHersdelTiLrclrHaSr^^ > 
eg3 coasistent en eflfcts neirociableg • nLCl P"'™^'"" «« 'eurs legs, si («8 

I^e jugenJgnt soumis a cetto Cour a 4t6 rendu oar fernnr ^n w < • • 
iafi™^ colui de la Cour do premiere inlnee ^ '^'""°"' /»"' "^ 

En r^aunid, voici la position des Mrties 

Les mt.m68 coatestent cette intervention et rdolament cinq des part« de ban 



-JIou»-^a*«.e^ s^i^s^^ d^tea p ^rts , nous avons droi^ 




■;*. '*■ 



144 



COUR DU'llANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



: 



TiAyBanque d'cn avoir la possession, et pni ooD8<$quent, il ce qu'ellcs soient port^cs en notre 

^' Vt*'*"* noni dana les livrcs do la banque." 

bnis Viger Lcs premiers veulent conaervcr leur gogo, Ics bicns do lis succession, empCcher 

' j" ' que CC9 bicns no soient confondps aveo ccux dos legatairos, cc qui pourrait leur 

'J. T. E. ftobi-faire perdre Icurs crennoos ; les seconds, au contraire, veulent so fuire tmns- 
tailleetal ^1,1 .• . 1 . •, • , 

porter leur legs parce que, discnt-ils, lis en sunt propridtuires, et en ont la 

saisino Idgalc. " * 

^ II s'agit done d'une mesurc^ purement conservatoire, la propriet<S dcs parts en 

question n'dtunt pas discutdc. ' * 

La Cour do premiere instance a maintenu les pretentions des uppclants ct a 

ordoqnd que oes parts restcraient au nonii do la succession reprdscntdo pai| lo 

curateu,r ; la Cour de Rdvision a cru devoir infirmer ce jugement, et u ordonnd 

__ que ces parts soient trunsportdcs hu noni des intiix^s. * ,■ .' 

■ i.; Les appelants soumettent que ce dernier jugemeht est errond. 

La seule raison donnde tl son appui, est que les^ldiiataircs ont eu In saisine do 

ces par^a dis I'instant du decis du tcstnteur, et quVttmt saisis, ils en sont prd- 

prietaircs et ont droit & la possession de cos parts, uopobstant rinsoivubilitd dela 

. succession, et la dcinandc de separation dpa pvitrlnioiucs, formee par les crdan- 

ciers. " , ' 

Toute ia cause ddpcnd done de la solution dos questions suivanto^ ;. ''. 

1 . Les crdanciers de la succession insolvable de feu E. 55. Archanibault ont- 
, ils droit d'Stre payds de leura crdanccs, sur et fk luCme lcs bicns de la suoce^ion, 

par prefdrence aux Idgataires particulters de ces bicns ? 

2. S'ils ont tel droit' de prdfdrence, peuvent-ils, en demandant le sdparation 
des patrimoincs, empCcher lcs Idgataires particuliers de prendre possession do 
leurs legs, consist^mt en cffets ndgociableS, et empeoher par \•^, la coni'usion de ces • 
biens de la succession avec ceux des legataires partjiculicrs ? 

L'appelaiit dit : '^ 

" Les^'dettes du testateur sont dans tous lcs cas pri/iries ai; paiemcnt dcs 
■ legs. (Art. 800 C. C.) 

C'dtait aussi la rdgle de I'ancien droit. 

" Les crdanciers, dit Bourjon (t. 2. 323, 325,) doivent 6tre pajes pvant les 
" Idgataires ; leur coneours pour le paiemcnt scrait une iniquitd parce que lo 
" testateur disposerait du bien d'autrui ; ce(]u'on nepcut^ proposer. Ainsi, le 
" priviljige des premiers contre les seconds est une regie inviolable." 

II n'y a done aucnn doutc que les erd:i1ticicrs hdreditaires ont uu droit de prd- 
fdrence sur les biens de la succession,^ I'cncontre dcs Idgataires. " 

II n'eet pns memo ndcossaire quo la succession soit insi&lvable, la loi nc dia- 
tinguant pas. Mais le bon sens dit assez que, si lcs crdanciers sont prdfdrds aux 
^ Idgataires, quand la succession est solvable et qu'il n'y a nueun danger pour les 

crdanciers, de pei-dro" leurs crdatices, ila doivent I'gtre a bien plus forte raison 
quand la succession est insolvable, et qu'il faudra, cOmme dans ce cas-ci, pro- 
cdder k la rdduotiod des legs particuliers pour payer lea dettcs de la succession. 
L'art. 887 du Code Civil le dit cxpressdment dans oette bypothSso. 

^ 887. Le ordancier de la succession a, dans la cas dc rdduction du legs par- 

*' tioulicr, un droit de prd'eronce sur la chose Idgudc, k I'encontre des or^anoiers^^ 



^' 



; *•? 



►"t; 






COUR DU BANC DE yi REINE, 1886. 



145 



ouiier pr6jttdioi6 par la induction, 6' son reoours oootre les h^ritiori o„ ^"'-M-v^-. 

_ Cependaot, b^n q„e nVyant que la qualiW de cr^anoiers du dtffunt et m.WX 

Raenmomefl que contre les crtanoiers de mritier, on n'h&ite pa«riWd^ 
1 anx or^anoiers h^r^dit^ires, 4 I'encontre des l^gatalrea " 

4 JXT"""' '''**P"'"'"'^"^'"y * ^°' ('• VI, p. 490) : 

J|.« lea cr^anciers 8ia.plea,«nt ohirographai«,s du d^funt „e peuvent B'aBsurer 

trwoyen de la s^pafation des patrimoines " i.-'^V™. 

i-alandtcSl; _ \ • ^^ \^^.. 

tendre aueun droit de prdfgre^,e envers les l^tairoB, a »oi™ quCl"£ 
"IL y"f7"^'°77™'*-<'"..P0»rBoute„irle .ontraire. le- expressions 

abord .ndiquer quela separation des patrimoines n'a^'o W^ K d 
cr.a„e.ers personnels de I'h.riticr. En effet ces expressions, q\i d itnt.t r" 
entendues .W„» .«ft;«c.a„» «.a.ena„. comprennent no -Lelent o!« 
envers lesquels rh^ritier se trouve oblige de son propre chef. I^ tons ^ 
ceux qu. auratent .nt^rSt a se prevaloir de la confusion des pa^iSes' ^ 
notammeat les Idgata.res dans lours rapports aveo les cr^anoie™ du dZ't ' 
EtDemolombe (t.XVII.No. 122.) "'ers au d6tunt. 

" Est-il n^cessairo due les cr^ancier^ du d^funt demandent la separation des 

."II pourraitsembler.au premier abord, que cette condition ne serait r,a. ' 
tecessaire soitd'apr^sle texte des articles 878 et 2111, qui „.«^'„,7 
separation des patrimoines que centre les criancier, de I'heritier soit Tn 
" ce principe dedroit et d'^quite quo les Jo<^ „e doivent gt« T'' C ^'^' 
;; les bi,„s et qu.l n', a bieL que^ettesrdr r:S;:rXar 

n W ^r^- "?'"t; ''""*"' '' ^"'"°* ^«**' Huncheoorne, Cl845' 
11.360,; DehMncourt,t. II. p. 33, note 7 ; Tou% t.,TI, Kas.:536^' 



-M»i.cep>...r^.,usenU^ut^fe4ia3;5;;i'ea : ^^ 



-^*"-' 



\ 



r. 



146 



C0URDU3ANC DE LA REINE, ISSff. 

I obtc 



J. U K. Robi 
Uilleetal. 






I.R Baiiqiic ^ oodtrairo, que les or<5ancier9 dtu ddfunt no pcuront obtonir la pr<Sfdronoo 
^'"tt'^'^ur IcsldRatairos qiTen demandant oontre oux la R^paratipn des patrimoiues : 
Denis yifflp " 1- Kn effot, par soft "nooeptation puws ot "simplo do la succession, l*h6ritior- - 
* " s'ost oblig<$ person nflljcmcnt envers les l^gatairos tout aussi bien qu'onvers les- 
" ordanoiers(aH, '^24, 871, 1017: 

" 01", d'uno pari, quitJonqub s'ost oblig^ porsqnnclUiment est tcnu do romplir 
"son fingaj»ement sur tous ses blcfts, mobiliors ot {inoiobiliors, presents et il 
'/.vcnir et, d'autrc part, tes bions do la succession, d'dsoriuais oonfondus avoc'iea ■ • 
•'-autrcs bien^de I'li^riticr, no foment qu'un «oul patriinqino qui est lo pase;' , 
,'' coinuyin de tous'sea crdanciers, !\ moinU qu'il q'; ait outro eux des causes Itfgi- 
-ri* times do pr^r^'retice (art. 209^, 2093) ; - . \ . . 

«• Done les Idgataires, dovenus ddsormais cr^ancicrs personnels de I'li^riticr, 

'7." au mSme titre quoiqu'en vertu d'uno oa^usc diflferentb q^ue les ci^anoiers du 

'• dt^un^ et les cr^ancicrs ptf^icUliers do rh«Sritior, d^sormais confoiidus, pnt, 

'Voomrae eux, les memos droits qui uppartiennent & tous les or^anciet^ sur tous 

"ses bions sans distinction (voy. loAom? II, No, 522.) '. 

" 2. Co syllo<^ismo nous parait inexpugnablo,.; et il projuTO en nifliqe temps 

" quo Varguracnt que Ton voudrait ddduiro en sens contPaire, Boit'des articles 

' " 878 et 2111, soit des regies ^du Ui'oit et do I'dquito, no soruit^ nullomoiit 

<' fondd. ' „ ' »■. *' ' •" ^ 

"JLIs articles 878 et 2111, dit-on n'orgaryseut la sjjparationjles patriaoines - 
" quej^qtro Iqs or&mciers do I'heritier ! Sans douto ; mais, pi&iH^uicnUioua^ J" 
'« venons d'<Stablir4ue leS j^ataires sonrdcvcnus, par reffefc do^racceptatioa^ 
" puroet simple,* les creaiTciers directs et personnels dtj I'hdrifier, ayanb les 
" m/8mes di-oits que stss autrcs ci-danoiors particuliors. Qu'est-co tlonc a dire ? 
" que ee mot cr&mciers, dans nos articles, doit s^ntondre de tous ceux envvs^ 
" lesquels I'heiitier lui-meme est persOnnellement 9bligC', et qui out, en conse- 
" quence, jntdr6t 4 se prdvatfcf, de son chef, de la coulusioa des ptrimoinea -• 
" (voy. aussi le tome III, No. 297). " . ' 

, "Et quant- 4 la maxime: Neni') Uberqlis, nUi Zt7>e»-rt<a«,-elle est oertaine- x 
' " ment, eh spi, pleine fle justice et d'<5ciuite ; mais il i^aat bien femarquer qu'ello 
" n'est Qonsacr<Se nulle part sous uno formulo aussi gdndrale et aussi vague, v 

" Tout-au coutraire 1 la piglo est que, lorsque les patrimoinea du ddfunt ct de' . 
" I'heritier aont contbndus^t tant'qu'ils" <leuiourent confondus, il n'.y a auoune 
" prC'I'erenco i^ssible au pUfit des erdanciers du ddfun'fc Xsontre les'l»5gataircs. 
; " Que faut-il done pour quo cette preference puisso naitre et a'exerocr ? • ' 
" U faut pricisiment que la confusion cesse, et que leg crianden du difunt 
" setrouvent en priaence des ligataires sur les bitiudu di/unt seulemenl, conn- 
'■ " dites di^, iors comme dUtincls des biens personnels de I'hiritie/t. 

'*'" C'estce quiiirrive, comme nous I'avona Vu, dans le caa oil I'hdritier a accept^ 
. » sous benefice d'inventaire (comp. je *«"« ^^^^ ^^- 295;)~ .^ . , ; * , v 

> / " Et o'eBt CO qui peut arriver dgalement dans le cas mejue d'acceptation piire 
' ," et simple, lorsque les crd^nciers du ddfunt demandeut centre les Idgatair^, la ^ 
" separation des patrimoints. ' . 

' " MaiTencore^foutil'qu'ils ladcniandcnt 1 






^'^ 



'f' 



COUH DtJ BANC 1)E LA RKINE, ISSs' 






¥ ' 



' hjRotMqUi^ Wgale que l^r acoordo I'articlo 1017 (oomp. CaHs, 9 dec. 1823 J- T- B itobfc. 
II- m' .7' f *'//"•»' «'-"«We, 2.1 juin iWl. Perret Dov. 1842- **'"''**'- 
.2 J Dufrcsn,, JTo. 37^^t 05; Zac-haria,, Aubry^ot ftau, t. V, p. 224) " " 

■ »lS.«2''*r' T'^' <^«''«N"P°'^<"'.4P1"S A>rtefai8oa^oLe, 6tr« do ^ : 

, mC-me sous pptre oodo. , ^ " ;. 

V , Ba<.flfet,8i leldgatU particulier est saisi o^mmd mriUir, ce qui airive 
.ndubuablewentdanslaplupart dosca,--obaa„o fbis q A Ipgs a Xr^It - 

une cho«,ertai„eetd<5enni„.e-c-o,tu„elon de plus po^;; K^ % ' ^ ' 
tion dos patriDiQines ait liou centre lui. ' . . ^ '" P®P»'»- ;.\ . *> 

Etantsnhi^eqmluidonHelapropri^t^etla^^^^^ / - 

I cs , e, quolque sorte, ray-nt-bauSe du d^fu,»t,;ct, en tant qu'il sW dOs bUi ^ '' 

trV'"?',.'^" r'""''"^^*"^ -mi-repr^se^le dlfunt. 1 a la ] D -' 
d.spo it.on.de I'objet %ud; il pout Fajigner. A Wontd;?. S'O «'agit J'un im •■ - 
me„blep„re,e™pleje8crdancier8h.r.ditai^^^ . 

.de p^f^ronce cjuen faisant I'en.registrement reqiiis par J'arC 2106 ^du^ Code ^ ■ . 
C^ I^ce q«. serait .nutile B'il B'y,avait pas'de saislne. attcndu qfr^^^^^ 
«K e«a.on se Irouv^^^^ d^l^gataire-u^versei oMes CairL ' 

atitreuBivgrselouderhdrltifer;! , '- -, • '*'«' <|^j5"«re8 

Ji\ le legs est une cdance, d^^ l'ou^t«Ji..ij; \^ sucsbessioo U^i^^ ' ' 

pe»orcetta.r.^^^^ •a^f«P-porti^^«.ti.™: ii.^^^^ - 

d J ''^'^^^TP'^ «"''^'' '^'^'^ ^ ''^^"». -»» notre . , 
<lri>^, BJftis pr6c.s^ment i cfqse de fcette diffdronce, la separation' des patri- ' 

-.c,^t.,eso^sleGodoNa^l^„, es^ absotunient ;«^ssSr«;cIr:i.i^ ^ ; . 

A«trcinent<ju*arriverait^-il?" '^-^ ;' ' jj^ • _ V" «, . - 

.Pr«norilp^Hrexeinp,le,ia.»ucce^«)n dontils'^ait MV 

l-el4g8lalreu^iv6rsela,acoepte8ou8b<5n«fice,«riventiiire ' " . 

. Jpmroe.ln?esi8aHlqueaeVbiensq«in'ontpaaet^leguesA ' • ' 

venT i'r patr boines qui' «s„lte de son acceptlon- sous b^' ^rd'h: 

^^l^^^rep.^^^^^ 

Or, il y a 30 ou 40^egs'partic«lierslfr Jesq^eTs to^^ le, biens de la suocessfon - ' ' 
wSilSr^- ^°^'^^"">»-^P— clebiepspo^payerZ^ - ' ' ^ 
_ La s^paratipn des patrin.oines rdsuhank de I'aoception sous bindfice d'idven- ' 

So" :f;'" ""•; ''r^^''' •^'^"^--^ •« '^^ataire unive.^1. ne s'appliql 
rait gone qu A une iwrtmn ina;n'n:A«„*<. -j_i. ., * ' _ ff ^ 



"^mtsse des bien^, 



portion "insignifia: 



*1^-qtiatffcnRi 



f 'i 



distribuAj en le^s parliouHere, elle ^Happer^it 



au reoours des 






^h-t 






14a* 



COUR DU BANC DE LA I^EINK, 1886. . 



V ll ^Mi* "-l^""*'*®" ' Cliuquo k'^iataiio prendruit posscBMion do son logs et en diBpoHeroie 
et ''A^n grC', 8Qnt' anx oidiincierft dii^d^funt 4 oxerccr contro eux un recours lo 

Denii Viger j^g Bpuvent illusuire I, " , 

* * * • • ' ' • 1 ■■■ ij ' " 

et Ainsi, un testatour qCii voudrnit (jftifCchcr fos crdunciers d'etre pay^i", n'au- 

UUIe«t»l. '"* ^^^ distritucr tons hcb biens irifJ le>?8 particulicrn, nc idonnant qu'upo 
portion infimo 4 quelqu-'un qui'accepterait sous bdndfico d'invontulro et le tour^ 
sernitjoudl Los ordunci^rs no poUvant oonscrvcr los bicns^aisant I'objet des 
« * legsparticulicrs, so trouvcraiont 4 Hcrdre oompl6tcnient lour gage ! ' 

•Tel no pent Ctre I'esprit do la loi ; ct Ton doit conclure; que les cr^anoicrs 
hdr^ditairca out certainoment le droit de doniaa4er la B((^pftration des patrimoines 
D. I'encontro des legatnires particuliers.' Ce droit exiatejSous lo Cpde Napoldon, 
dont les articles. 878 et 211 1 correspondent aux articles 743, 879 et 2106 do 
J. notra Code Code : et nous droyons avoir dtfnioiititf que, par la position nouvelle 

qui est f^ite au Idgataire partiouliel sous notre Code, il y a uno raison addition- 
nolle pour accorder oe recours, qui est puremont conservatoire nux- cKSanciers 
h^rdditaw^. ' 

Voibi^le jugcment de la Cour d'Appel : ' 

" Consid^rant que la Banque Ville-Marie a par sa I'equSte repr^senl^ que fe# 
Euedbe Z^phirin A'rchambai^ en son vivant de la paroi^se de TAsBoniption, ^tait 
lors de son d^cds, prqpridtaire de vingt-six parts dans le fonds capital do la 
Banque Ville-Marie, de la vuleur nominaje do $100 ohacune ; qu'en vertu d'un . 
' Acte de la Ldgislature de la Puissance 44 Vict. 6. 35, le capital de la Banque^ 
avait <St^ rdduit de moiti^ et le nombre de parts appart^nant aux reprdsentants 
du dit.Eusdbe Z^phirin Arobambault se trouvait.r^duit atreize ; que.des diffi- 
^j\ cuIt^s ont 6t6 soulev^es pdr le curateur & la succession vacante du dk Eusdbe 

W Z^pbirin Arcbambault et qu«lques-uns de ses l^gataires partiouliers qu^nt aux 

'^ droits d'obtenir que oes parts soient plac^es en leurs noms dans les livres de la 

banque, oe qui autorise la banque 4 demandcr en vertu de In section 25dme-de - 
I'Acte des Banques 4 oe qu'il soit adjug^.sur les pretentions des parties r^liw 
mant ces parts de banqus. H ^- 

" Stconsid^rant que. Bar th^lcmy Kocher, curateur A la saceession vacante du 
dit feu Eusdbe Z^phirin Arcbambault ii^|MVfapport4 ik justice et les dppelants 
qui Bont or^anoiers de la dite suceession en Tcrt)a d'un jugement que leur a 
. >^ '. eed^ 1^ Banque du Peuple, ont par leur requgte en intervention re^r^sent^ que 
la 8Uccci>8ion du dit feu Eusdbe Z^phirin Arcbambault ^tait insoLvablc et ont 
demand^ lu h^paration des biens oomposant le pntrimoine du ddfnnt d'aveo oelui 
de ses l^gatoires particuliers, et que les dites parts fussent lai^es & titre de 
fidcicommis entre les mains du dit Barth^lOmy Hoober, en sa quality de curateur 
; 4 la succession vacante du dit Eusdbe Z^pbirin Arcbambault, et jusqu'4 ce 
que les affaires de la dite succession aient 6t6 liquid^cs et les appelants payds de 
I leur cr^unce; laquell<& requgte en intervention a 4t6 contestde par les Hitim^s 

qui 'pr^tcndent qa'en leur quality de Idgataires particuliers de cinq des treize 
r parts en actions r^tant dans la dite Banque Ville-M(me ils en sent saisis de ' 

plein droit et doivent en avoir la disposition imw^jiiffter 

" Et conai dd r a nt qufl A nhi l lft A rohamba u l t lalenl Idgnt a ire univc rnftl da dit 



•■-<it 






"hW'^^'^w^'^i^^^^ I ' 



L.V 



-1 



GOUn DU BANC Dfi LA BEINK, 1886. 




i^u EuH*be ZtfphlriD Aroh«u.bault « rononod A wo logs u„iver«cl ot par od.to i.«« 
reno„e.auoa,d« rcprd«nta„t .u pro„.ior deg.^ du ddfunt sT 1 /s^L ^"-^'2^: 

antH dun autre degr<5,ceux-o.n'ayant que la facultd do se nortdr hdritiers H'ila •»»»• 

Ea^b Zc^ph.r.n Ar,h„„.baultet que partant le dit Bartbolea.y Lher . 6t ^'"••»^ 
biendlucurateurAlasacooaaionvaoanteduddfant /\ *T«' • «" 

\l<,l^l ''7id<5''<">t que los crduDciors d'ua d^funt ont tJujotirs le droit de * 

dcmaoderla^p„rat.ondup^^^^^^ ' 

, n.o.no n a paa <5td comme dans le eas pr^ae^t, eonfondu aveo eolui de« UmI 
^u roprescntants idgaux du ddfunt. ' « «ciui aes Mritiew , 

Z "J^ <'*l°«!"J'57M»o 8i ies parts ou actions da,^ La BanqueVilWMario dont ^ 

soraicnt confonducs avoc los b.cns perUnols des dits %atuire«, ce qui priierait 
l-.appolantsdu droit dedcmander la separation du patrimOine do I dS 

estd^lt'l^'f*"*'^""'"*^''**'* ?^P«ration du patri„.oino.de leur ddbiteur , 

T.T X . .? *^P'""" ^"hambault est en 4^oonfitur,^.ot quo doux dos ^' 

jU.^.s^do„tau.Etats-Unisou*ne^^^ 

" Cbnsid^rant que ies intialds ont ndaninoinfl le drt)it d'obtonir la dispasition 

de e.nq ^c. duos parjVdo banque qui leur ont duS Idgudes par k^^^^^ 

i nit Lt? e? ;'' ? '"^-^ ^^^-t^ressant les appelant ou en lour do„ • 

I nant bonuis et suflBsuntcs eautidn.,, qu'ils seront pavds iotdrralcmcnt da 

u.onta„t do leurordanoo en. capital, intdrots^tddpens " f''"'^"'""' ^^ 

" Et considdrant qu'il y a eu erreur dans le* jugement dpnt est appeld" savoir 

'' Cettc Cour dasse et annulle le' drt jugemontdu 30 avrin885 
Et proeddant i rendre le jugement que la dit« four Supdrieure sie-eant ea 
Rdv s.on aurau a rendre. aecorde la s^para.idn du pat,ri»oiSe deJanS " le! 
conclusions de la requfite des dits a^pelants, et adjugV et ordonne que Ic! 
dues treize parts ou aOUons dabs le capital dela ditd ianque Ville-MLie^Ln ' v 
p ac^e^ par la d.te Banque Ville-M.rio au no« du dit BaJthdlemy ZhlZsl . 
btu i ' """^'r: ' K-^^on vacante du dit Eus^be Zdpbir Anla " ' 

bault, jusqa'au r^glemont des aff,u|s dcla dite succes^on o^ jusqu'4 oe queries ' ' 

ordonnd p,r toute autontd comftcnte; si Aleux ' n'aiment ie^dits intime, 
t!"-' auxappolants sous un dA'un mois Compter de ce^rlta^^? 

ttalementTT "r ^'^^'^ '''^'-' 'I- ^^ A^^ "PPelants seront payds * " " 

— tmarram Uour ou a tol juge d'ordonner que cinq des ditcs parU oA ■ 

. actions seront placdes au nom des intimfe ou leurs rcprdsenUgts ' ^ ^ ' 



m 



ISO 



couR mi BANC m: ix retne, ,i»80. 



hn BaMue 
Vitlt-Marie 
It 



" Kt In Cour ordonne quo loxddponN Hur In roquOto do la Dtinqiio Villo-Marie 

floiont pn;t$.i pur profi^ronoo ^ur ut ii ludino lo prodult doi diton -parts de 

eial**" banquo, qui Icr nupportoront, Icn fraiti onoourun pur euz »tir Jeur roqu(|to en 

tt intervention juRqu'i!^ la produotioh pur Un intini(<H do lour oontoatntion do- la dite 

taiileatal. ''<><luCto en intorvontion, et tc8 intinid:* sunt ()ondrimti($iiV payor nux nppelnntH lea 

Aroifl encouruH oh Cour dc premiere inttt^noe dopuin In production do lout contes- 

. tation do8 dits/ appolants on Cour de premiere inxtanco nioHi' quo' KUr Ion proo<$< 

c^dds on rdviRJton et sur lo prds^nt uppcl," {diameiUienUi, M. lo jugo Tcasier). 

■ ' I, 

RoBUhux 4t Fortin, avooots dcs nppelaiitfl. ^ / 

ArchambauU tt ArchanUta0t, avoouts dc8 intinids. 



/ 



■\ 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE. 

/ ' (i" Appel.) 

Montreal! i7 JANVIER 1886. 
Coram SiR A. A. DobiON, C.J., Tessier, Rausay, Cross et Babt, JJ. 

P. jl^ONBTTB, 

' ' (Requirant en Cokr It\f<rieure), 
Appilant, 

■T ' ' 

LA SOClfiTfi DB ST. JRAN-BAPTISTB DE VALLBYFIBLD, 

T 

, {D^enderesM en Cour ItifMiute), 

■ ■ ' *" / iNTIMfol. , 

Juoi :<-(^ue rigle g6D£rale on ne peut expiilser un inembre qui a del int£r6ta dans un» 
corporation mdi lui en donner avis. Maia que dam I'eapice ravis n'6talt pas 
n6ce8aaire ; que rabsenoe de la formality de ravia a 6t6 cduverte par la pr6seDC0 
du r6querant &la,i6aDced'tfpulsion, etparle taitque ceOtsmier a pria part H, 
la diacuaaion, n'a paa requia'^n d£lai uU6rieur pour le dC'fendre et a demand6 le 
, '. , ' vote aur la dite riaolution. . ' , 

" Voici le jugemeot de la Cour de Revision prdsidde par lea honorables jugea 
Siootte, Gill et Loranger :• C'est de ce jugenient qu'il y a appel. 

" La' Cour, aprda avoir cntendu lbs partieji ; " 

"Considdrant que la preuVe conatat« que lora de la cdldbration, le vingt-oinq 
juin 1881, de la f$te de la St. Jean-Baptiate, i6cr4t4o et rtfglt^ par la ddfende- 
' resae, pluaieura personncs avaient 6t6 invitdea par lea direoteura et lea oiembr^a 
de la Sooi4t4 ik prendre part et nsaiater ikla fdte, ct y faire dea diaooura ; " 

'< Considdhtnt en i^ail, que M. Bdlqtie, aurintendant du oanal de Boauharnoia, 
<$tait au nombre de oea invites, et asaiatait 4 cette fete, et fiit appel4, auivant que 
rdgld prdalablemcnt pur la Sooj^td, a adreaser Id parole 4 la foule aaaomblde aur 
lea lieuz ohpiaia pour rocpaaion ; " v .^ 

" Co naiddrant eft ftttJ^^Bsa i t O^ que M r . B^lqae ftit^appcld e t reuJu p i^ 



^' 



,,_,.„, ^,^.,-.,,,^_, 



T 



COUR DU BANC DE LA HEINE, iSSfi. 



dj, roHtra.|e pr^rde pour lo. ornteuM, le domand^ur Monette te mit&ori/r: F. JlonetU 

I nH .lo Bj(,,ue; oulbuta roHtrudo, monognnt do ftapper co dernier et le I»L.,» „ •!,„ ,. 

dont do la Soo.<5td, qui .'dtait e,npro,«S do .e rc^re lA, pour on.p<toh« l/do- «* SM 

mahdour dotroublor Tordro ot Ics nrrangomoou arrfltd.iwur la o<!l«$brotlon^o U "' ^""•'"•"»- 

• * ' • / 

"Coniiddrant en fuit, qu'il s'cn 08t sui^i un grand turaulto. do? monac/B. dea 

alteroationH, dos invootiven, doa tuttox porsonnollea ot des ooup do poing 

" CoD«idtfrnnt quo nonobaiant I'inWryention du prdnidont ot dei autros 
officors, domme do pluiioura oitojonH, lo domandour a porHiifd dnhn ao/aggrea 
«oil» et aes parolei d'irijureiot do oontradiotion contro lea arraogomoni aVrdtda ^ ' 
par Is direction ot la Sooi^UJ ; . » •" / ■ 

:^ " Oonsidirant quo prir oette oonduite> oontraiw 4 la paix ot aux ro/venanMa 
oomme auz ordonnanoea de la Sooi«Std, quant iV la odl,5bration do/a f&u> le 
domandour a 6t6 Oause d'un*grave d<5sordre'"publio/ a outrag<< et blea* lea aenti- 
menta de la grnndo miijoritd doa motilbree de Vasaooiation et doTporaonnea 
appewos i. y prendre part ; •> ' 

jr •♦ ConsLMrant quo dea fnita de cette nature aont unroutrasflAux fconvenanoea 
et nu roapoot que loa oitoyona aedoivent. iputuellemeilt et colfttuJlt un prdc<J, 
dent dont I'unpuniUJ, iiiotti?.it endanger lea intdrdts et I'toisteno^nflme de la 
«ooic<t<5; . Tf « ■- 

" Con8id<5r«nt quo la direction et la Socidtd, en drforAt I'ex 
m mombrea qui avait niia on: dangeJ\l'eil8tenoe ot lea intdrfil 
outrage la paix publique, inaultrf la 8ooidt6 et <^nx qu'ollo aval 
rohauflsor I'dolat do aa ftto, out faitoo que la.digniid ot lea int<5 
tion exigeaiont ; , 

'tOonsiddrant que rexpulalon pronon/cde oontrele deinant^ur dtait choao 
d'accord aveola lettre et I'eaprit de la^ conatitution de la SoJdtd oomme dea 
rtWlementa, et que oette expulsion ddfioulait dea rdglea de j Ltioe applicaWes 
centre toute violation de I'opdre et de I'honnfiteW publique J ' 

"DAJare qu'il y a eVreur duna le jugem^nt do JalCour Sup^-ioure, rendu le 7 
jum (1884) mil huit cent quatre-vingt^uatre, qOi |, ordonnd (ue le domandour 
tut rdmtdgrddans aa condition ^ membro dod^idtd, et qii a annuls I'adui. 
dication d'expulaipn ddordtde par la Socidtd ; ^ ^:/-S-:^.lL-,-^.-:^^,>-,:.'^'' 
' " Et procddant H rendre le jugement que la Cour Supdrieufe iurait dtt rendre 
ddfclare pour lea motifa.ddjA expliquds, que le domandeur MoJette eat mal fondd 
dans aa demande et requfite ; et que la Ddfendero^ eat biel fondiSe dana sea 
moyeps de contestation; d6boute le dit Monette de aa demjnde fet'r«qu6te et 
dcs confelusiona prisea on ioolle ; aveo ddpens oontre le deman Jeur, .tout en Cour 
deaSyiaion; dont distraction eat accordde aux avocata ^ la" difendereaae 
MM. Mercier, Beauaoleil & Murtineau ;, et ordonpe quo le dcLier aoit roniia H \l 
m6 Cour do premiere instance. 
Le requdr'ant appello de oe jugement. 

Dans aarequfitoMonetto so plaint d'avoir dtd ezpnU mLavinMable et 
»an8 aueufie raiton rit mo*-'* -' — -^^ '- ^ • "•- - '■■ '"^ 



alsion d'un de 
io la Socidtd^ 
uiyitds pour 
I de l'as8ooia> 



fifj>f"VJtibk , et domnndn d'etr e rlint d grd mutowbrg : 



li 



"ISpienSregde la socidto ddfendOresse. 



>»-^ 



*. 



.,_:-t 



IV 



-■'»'":^' 



152 



C'OUil J)U BANC DK LA HEINE, 1886. 



P -Ifomin .Void ooiiiiuent I'lippolaiit diiwuio la iKJooimitd do ruvU. ^ 

La Hocii^u'i a« On a «xpuM dit il rappoliint «'in« miU. 

d« Vallejllild! ''''"*»'''<?• radnioi dii»M na roponiia H l'intorro(|nloiro huitji^me ( Appon^lco^de 
rnppilunt pngo 4, ligne 37 ot aaivaotaa.) Main olio dniot la prttoniioo-qu'il n'y' 
uvait (Mft bflsoin d'aviik '« ' -; , 

Cotto pretention ost oxtrnmrdlnane ; extrnordioairA parao quo rnrtieto raAmo 
doa oonstitationii ot rixlomonta d'liprda lequol I'intiuiL^ a hM TexpuWon exiije 
urn (ivi«; oxtraordinairo Murtfltit pitrouquc, on droit oomuiun ot on <Squi^, U faut 
toujours donner avit de procddd^ demblablua I 

I'our dilponaor d'ua ufif duns un ooa Mmblablo il faudruit uno atipulation 
iri)re»t*i et tani iimbiguiti duna In ]oi ou dana Ich riK'o™cnt< do I'liaisooiation,' 
. Car en I'abaonoo d'yuo tollo atipulation, las tribanan ne (Kiuvont pua aupjwscr 
que loa iqembrcH-aient ronono^ il oe droit. 

Or, nor) aouloiiicrit il n'y a ;>«• atipulntion exprow) diapeqaant d'un afin ; 
mail rurtiol^mOme do la oonatitutioo 'tn vortu daqnol riutini<$o a fait I'oxpul- 
sion parle d'un avia prdalabbl. ' ' \ 

L'intimdo^a appuyd octteV^^^i^nUon dtonnunto qt;i'il no fullait pnu <riivia nur 
le jugoinont de la Cour SuprOino in, re V Union Ht. Jimph et Lapierre. 
(Suproina Court It -porto, 'pi(j][e 1G4 at sdivantos.) . - 

Mais 00 prdc45dont n'u piw du tout d'upplioation daasi Itk pr«$iiontc cause, si ce 
o'cHt on stiUH oontraire aux prtStcntions do I'intiuidu. / /f 

'Duns la oauso deT Union St. Jo$eph il s'ogissait d'un uicmbre cxpulstS pour 

n'uvoir pas pnyiS sea contributions. La Cour Suprdino a ddoidd quo Lapiorre 

ilail en demeuffi do payer par lo soul lapd^ll^ tempa 6om\4 ot qu'il n'y avitit pas 

bcsoin, poui* I'expulijcr, do lui fuiro pr6alablotuont uno demiande de puiomcnt. 

Mais oetto haute oour n'a pas ddoidd que !!& ipierro u'ayuit pas droit d un avit de 

la nioiion en expulsion fuite contre lui. Ello a renvorsd le jugemont de la Cour 

d'Appol Buroo point pour uno seuloot unique raison : savoir paroo que Lapiorre, 

ulans sa requ6to lib«ll<5e, nose pl!aij;;nait pus du dU/aut d'^oia prialahU de la 

Hiotion d'expulsion, niais so plaignait »euhment de n6 pas avoir mis en demeiire 

• ih payer ses contributions. * 

-, l^ans la prdsente cause, Monotte, (rappclant,) so pluiat sptjoialomcnt du difant 

d'avh pridlable do la motion d'cxftulsion faito centre lui. Le motif diStorminiint 

ct unique des honorablos j.ugos Ritohio, iPx)urnier, Henry et Tusolierea^ n'cxisto 

done pus ici. 

Mais bien au contraire, le rapport do oetto cause de L* Union St. Joseph fait 
voir bieo olairement que dans uu oas oomme celui-ci, il faiit n6ce»tairement m 

iipi$. ' " ■"" ' ■"''■ ■ ■■ ■ . - -^ ..-'■- 

Le rapport({iago 169) donne un r^sum^ des rdglements de I'Union St. tTbscph, 
oil il appiirt que cos ri^glcmcnts sont rddigiSs dans doa termes idontiques & ceux 
de rintimde en cotte cnuse-ci. * 

. Ap^ndioe de I'appelant, page 76, lignes 23 et suiv. Article de la constitu- 
tion ot rdglemcuts en vertu duquel I'iutimde a expulse I'appelant. 

" Tout mcmbrc qui aura oompromis I'bonneur, la dignity ou les'int^rdts do 
]& Boe\6t6 en est expulse. Un membre sera consider^ avoir oompjromis rhonnettr 



V 






'\ ^ 



COIIB mi BANC PE lA HEINE, 1886. 



IM 



de In tooitftd •'11 tiontJinfl conduit* i6t4f\^; at nprd* avoir 6t6 ■varti par <krit F. Monaii. 
par lo aoor<$taire, aur I'ordrt du ooinlt^ d« rrfgit, do ohanKor do conduito, ail no u Ho^4M da 
itaniondo poa duraut I'oapaco do troiH uKiia, il Mm rayd do la iiato doa mombraa." "• j' Bapitaii 

Co^Hont nbaolument loa nit^raoa ternioa. La ooiiatitution do i'intlai<Jo a <5t<5 *'"*'** 

(Wiilcmmont oopiAo, quant & oo paMage, aur oello da I' Union Ht. ,J«aeph. 

Or, leq jyooata do I'lInion'St. Joacph, en diaoutant oetto qcM^ition davi$jtri- . 
,(/,//;/#• dovant U Cour 8«pr«aje, diaaicnt: (Huprciuo Court Hop. Vol. IV paira 
171.) « . ,. -^ 

' Nowtiro oonie to tho merit of the contention that prior notice waa noooa- 
" my. Why auoh a notice bo necoaaary in ttio present onao ? Lapierre ia not 
" iccuaod of miabohavior, of having ooiupromiaed the, honor or the dignittf "bf the 
" M«ioty. I/iuch <i charge had been jtre/trred ngainit him NUTIUC WUULD 
" HA V« BiiN waoiaftARr aj provided and requirtil Ay $ub. Md. «A " 



L'hon. juRO Gwynno out le aoul dea oinq jugoa do la Cour Huprflmo qui all 
diwutd au mdrite la n^cssitd d'un avis— loa autrea H0,bd8ant uniquomont aur lo 
fait quo lo ddfaut d'avia n'^toit paa alWgu<5. J^I»i« ni<Jii»b I'honorablo jijge 
Owynno oRt il'avia qu'il aurait fullu un avla pr^alable dani|un oaa oomme oeluU 
» ci. II aantmilo IcsVtutuU et rdglement d'uno aaauoiation A un oontrat liant lea 
.jiiorubrea ot la sooiiSuS; il r^sunio lea atatuto de I' Union St. Joaoph et il rfit: 
(poKdlBS). . , i 

" '>y ""eo. 6 of the aamo artiolo it wna contracted between the petitioner 

" and the aociety that upon any charge comprolhising the honor or the dignitif 
" or the inierestt of the adciety, he could only bo expelled after • varning ia 
" writing should be served upon him by order of the society." 

L'interpr^tiition donn^o A cette- clause dea statuta do oca sooi^t^s par IcA 
Mvunts uvocata et lo savant jugo, est cello qu'oUo eomporto naturellement. 

L'appelant a droit d'fitre prot^gd oontre I'intorpr^Ution abusive et ood(|». 
I'applioation abusive de oette olause. i, - 

Lcs statuta do raasociation ferment entre Tappelnnt et I'lntimde no oontrat 
bilateral. Lea tribunaux no supposeront paa ()ue I'appolaot a abandoiwd un 
droit Evident, ui droit toujours soas-entendo, Bans que ceL abandon soit 
cxprimd olairement. lis ne le supposeront point dans oo ooa^sl, at^endu que 
I'orticle en question n'enldve pas co droit, et qw'il est rddigi, au oontruiro, de 
mani^re 4 convainore {'appelant que oe droit lui ^tait sp«ioialeinent garanti. ' 

L'appelant d'aprds les^^lements no pourrait 6tro expulsd, pour lea causes 
alldguies, qu'en caa de ricidioe aprda avia prialalle. Les ^r^c^denta de I'ho, 
nofable juge Gwynno tendant 4 d^montrer qu'un mandamus n'est pas accords 
pouroouae d'irrdgularit^, lorsque le requdrant pourrait de suite ^tre i^guliire- 
ment expulhd pour la mSme cause, n'ont auonne application idi et puisqu'il n'y 
» pas eu yrfcirfiDe tel qu'exigd par les rdglementfl. % _ * 

^^Le Journal du Palais 186B, page 602, rapporte an arrCt da fa eo£ de 
Bordeaux disaut " que h» decisions diseiplinaires prises en execution de leurs 
riglemcnts par les soeiet^s de secoure mutuels, sp^cialement cellts quipronon. 
ant I' exclusion tTun membre, ne sont pas souveraines et peuvont dds lors 6trd 



I 





,,.._,, 




rr 




>^- ' 



^S; 



a' 



i 



'•'S 



lit g OOUR DIT BANC DR LA UKINK, 1886. 



Mftiietui^ 



I., 



\ 



^^ n\f^*i 0»Jr utrdinnrtf l^nl rrmmlin ^ m Hlglit of m notion may bo 

I.» H<iciuu^ ,|« tieroitwd in ihemnnHrr and/ur purpoBtM pr«iicrib«<l. 

<!• Vniw'jilli!^ ^'''*''' ^ '^^*" ^^'*'** "-^ "*"•'* '^ *''• P"""" r«inoTB<I of ilici procMKidinKS of 

tho corporation for hia reniofai ia rtgardml aa Mn^eUnt ,jn„tn,l fur invoking the 

' •ilrnordiflAry aid of a m'in</<imMii, and whoro • dorporator linii ham roino»«J 

*"*"'*' "**'"'' "'"' *'''**'"* *»l'P«'"""'y «•" IwinK hu«r<l «i» hiadofeniw, tlio courta 
l|# will intarpuaa for hia ralief, i( being iht unqiieilioimt ri9hl of etary pemoo lo 

fra-inr nofictbf any proooodinn oxainHt liint which niny nffiiot hia rigliln. 

Moaea, on mantLimu: Voir oo f\\x\ y oHt dit do la chum ('ommonwruKh w. 
St: I'alrick't Soeielf,, im^f Wim. 
Sar 00 I'intiindo rdpood : ' 

L'avia rm^juia dana out urtkita wtt pour fiitro ehnmijn- (&» amiluitc ; mtU non 
pour iiil'urnier lo ooupablo qu'il «#ra oxpulit^ ^ telle m^anoo. 

»_ Or, MUrii "d'arolri ohanKar do oonduito" n'^t pan roquia qnand il a'l^it 

d'un aot« oonime oolui dont Monotto a'uat rendu ooupablt, lo 25juia 1881. 
L'ovia oat donn<J pour quo oului qui a'onivro, etc., M'amende, etc.. iniia on no 
prdtondra pu qu'un nolo coiurao o«li^i-oi eat auHcoptiblo d'amcndoinent. 
* y ;i AuoitB avia u'dtait D($ociuiaire dana oo oaa-oi, pi pour obtenir un ohan|u;einant 
do oonduito, oe qni aorait ridicule; ni pourfuiru aavoir que rcxpulsion aora fio- 
poado, la oonRtiti^tion no l'cii)(onnt pan. 

iMfutttode Monetto cat putonto, nitinifcatc.oominiNenvoo audaoo.on plelnjour** 
<et uvco prdrndditatioii et dovait fltro punie aomiuairemont oomnio ullo I'u «$ld. \ 

D'aillcura Monetto dtait prd!t«nt ot a pria part k I'awombldo du troia juill^t 
qui l> dostitud ; il a'y cat ddfondu ot a douiandd le hnltottage qui lui a dtd 
acoordd. II ne a'eat piia pluint do rabaenoe do I'avia, niaia a ddbfttlii le nitrite 
ludmo do aa oonduite qu'il a prdtendue avoir, dtd irrdproobable I ^ 

Pourquoi alora un avis? Tour lui pcriucttre de so dAfondre? II ■'oat 
ddfundu I 

Nous dinons done : I'avia n'dtoit pia roquia dans oe oas^i ; et a'il Tettt dtd la 

prdsonce do Monottc.lora de rcxpulsion.aurait oouverto cotto abwnoo de fnrmalitd. 

La Cour Suprflmo a d^oidd : re Lapicrre & TUnion St. Joseph (4 Supreme 

Court Iteports, p. 164), que I'avia n'dtait pas rc(|ui8 pour prononoer I'expulsion 

lornquo le mcmbre dtait en demoure do fuiro oo qu'il devait fairo. ^ 

Lo memo prinoipo s'appliquo ot nous no oroyons devoir niioux faire que de 

oitcr qiielquearrcmarques du Juge Gwynno, fuites dans oette cause et prises aux 
pages 186 et seq: 

" In Hex vt Lypio ReRisCl Dougl. 158) it was hold that when residence was 
" a condition of tho enjoyment of a corporate office, tho corporator in case of non 
" residence might bo removed, without any notice to come and reside being first 
" given ; for ho was bound to know the law under whiob he held otfbe. The 
" principle of that case appears to apply to this, for tho petitioner was bound to 
"know that "by this contract he has promised to pay his contributions <vithout 
"any Bpecial demand at a purtioular time and place, and that if he should make 
" default and therein continue for six months, he might be removed from the lisi 
" of members, upon a motion to that effect made by any member of the Society." 



.. 1^3' 



OqUR W MHO DM LA RRINB. \m. 



lU 






'Cl'lZT r""**"P<'«»- ««-'. »-«/.«•.• town Irk, whoT^ 
" aS.dt '"' 'f "'""' """ "' """"'"« »»"» «»•>*"""» ^h-tfho town 

'" tZliJl '^"'"'«'"'' P-"^-«. «l-'"*«i th.t th«, W..UM .,ot ,r.at »h« wrU 
o rattore ID offioor whan It •«■ .«i,„a..u.i.„ »i._. .. . . , 

" oiimt MiiN« ^ romovi 

Thin aoHA wan To 



* wimro tho court rofl 
' " ken RUHpendfld frortf 
" notio«, it appflftring 
"fuftp«n»ion. 




w»« loknowledK* thtt tl|a oorfwrition h«d (iufl- 

•'». Tho M»yor of Loridon (2 T««ii R. lt7 

imiw to reatoTQ * oorporate ofSoei; whop'td 

^ whiiji, Rmolumenti woro KttMho<i, j^oat 

«wn ahewing-tlHitthOTe wMgood gro^ for 

(Id- R. 185) " Th« nilo upcthV point to U gatliered from tho oaso. I, thu 

"1:tiz: fr'T ^'''""'' -'«»-«f'»'»kind«„dt..cir::i' 

^''o^^rhdrbr ;;" f *"• "«°'''»^»'" »>««« ingoodfaith «„d i» th«e«rci« 
of h„ r judgenrent for the borfofit of the «K,icty aod not founded upon m.re 
indu,du«l oapnoe. when ,ho dooiHion h„ boon arrived .t hma-Jidr m^koM 

•ppoar toAhuvo boon violnfod." \ 

Xou. trouvon, ootte doctrine d«n, ton, Ie« au.our^et notammment dan.^ 
nvhne^n'mnlmarjfleg^it ««»,.,/»«, edition de 1P74, .M. ondroSta nouH^it^. 

s 2S:fr^:r:;?x;,7 1;" ^"^''^';^ '^ -- ^^ -'-^ ^^^ 

Inforyliti, dam VexpMm{n„^mnfe,po^r ohieniria rii^igmlion ,i lef 
<^'iumdexpuUion$o»td'aUleur»ju»te»,%'AU. 

Le motif dexpuUion est nuffimntqmind Vintirct et h, dlgidti de U Soditi 
M»<»»w«i<irinsfc>-, Mows, i!f«,u/«OT«,^. 188. ^, " 

m ,, „ ^, , Jupcment c6nfirm<!. 

truael, been, tharbonneau et Lamotht, avoonta de I'nppelaDt. 



ij 

J.' 



t,T^^" 



...it 



\ 


v' 


1 


■ > " 




^// 


V» 




., •• ■ 


;; - , 






, ^ 


♦" 




* 










•■// 






s ' 






















i 

1 


• 


• 


I : ' , 




> 






•■(■- 


■' ■ 




















-/ .. 


\ ' t^' 




. "^ 


^ 












' 


. 


, 




* 


» 






I 








• 




-' — 


' 




r* 


• )v ^ 






.4;^ 








^ 












»- ' 


1 
1 > 






•<■ 






- 


« 






-^ , - - 








•;. 












-^■■ 


• 


/ 




^ 


V 






It.. 








_ . . 


* 





I 



156 



COUR DE REVISION, 1886. 



I ' ' i >ri . 



' COUR DE RilVISION, 1885. . 
MONTREAL^ 21 DfiCEM3RE 1885. 

Presents : Plamondon, Bouboiois et Loranqeb, JJ. 



D. PRUD'HOMMB, ' 



DlMANDCnB ; 



V8. 



J. p. SCOTT BT At., 
. ' Dfcj'ENDBOHS. 

Jcoi^— 1. Que le proprietaire d'une biltisse ou autreq ameliorations faites surle terrain 
d'autrui peut, par repregistrement, acqu6rir une hypothique sur ces 
amelioratioDB. (Art. 2017, C. C.) 

r . 2. Que ces amuliorations soat immeublea. (Art. 376, 0. 0.) 

3. Que, loraque d'aprda les termcs d'un cqntrat contonant une clause risolutoire 
< ■ P*f Jsquellc lo d«faut do paiement resout abaolument le contrat, le tribu- 
nal ne petit intervenir ; , 

4. Quelesfraia d'enregiatremetft d'un contrat d4 rente sont compris dans cewx* 

que I'ach^teur est tenu de pajrer. (Art. wh, C. 0.) 
6. Que pour «tre valables les offrea r6elles et la consignation doivent <Stre tellea 
' ' qu'il soit loiaible & la partie d'accepter purement et aimplement sans 
anoune condition. 

Le jugement dont le denjandeur demando la revision se lit oomme suit 
(McDougail, J.) : 

" Consid^rant que le denaandeur n'a pas prouvd son droit de demander la 
resolution de I'acte de vente par lui au d^fendeur Joseph Scott, pass^ k Hull, 
dcvant Mtre. J. 0. Archambault, notaire public, le Tingt-septidme jour de juillet 
mil huit cent quatre viugt-deux. 

" Con8id<SranJb que les ddfendeurs, avant I'institution de Taction en oette cause 
savoir le deuzidme jour d'octobre mil huit cent quatre vingt-trois, ont oflFert 
d'une manidre l^ole et sans objection quant h. la forme. des deniers offerts, la 
sonime de cinquante-sept piastres courant, balance du prii de la vente du vingt- 
sept juillet mil huit cent quatre vingt-deuz, par le demandeur au d^fendeur 
Joseph Scott, mais prdtendait soulement qd'il avait droit k quatre piastres et 
quarante oentins pour enregistrement ; . ** . ' 

" Considerant q^Jil n'cn existait pas de stipulation entre le demandeur et le 
dit Joseph Scott pour ces frais d'enregistremetit et que Scott n'^tait pas oblig^, 
de les payer ; » ' - ' 

" Considfrant que la dite somme de cipquftnte-sept pi^res a 6t€ d^pi^^e avec 
les depenses, declare les dites offree suffisantes et d^bo^e Taction avec d^pens 
distraits d, Mtre. A. Rochon, avooat des diSfendeurs." 

Par son action, le demandeur demande- la resolution ^'un aote de vente inters ' 
venu entre lui et le defendeur Scott, faute par ce dernier d'avoir accompli lea 
conditions mentionnees au dit-acte. Le demandeur alligpj^ :— Que le 13 
decembre 1881, il aurtut loufd de Delle. Janet^ouisa Sctfii^, devant Mtre. 
Archambault, notaire, unVccrtain emplacement situd- dans la ville de Hull, pour 
le terme et espace de cinV ans, moyennant six piastres par?atinee; que le 27 



■juiUe<r48^541-«tMrait-vendu a,u Ibf feideur JoseptTi 



m- 



/ 



'■■'/ 



/ 



1 . " 

CObn DE llEVISION, 1885. 






157 



me 

Vfl. 

. P. Scott 
ctul. 



ItHrt'ou Je Ixdito vente ofT 



# 



S^/'pS^r ^l' W """""J." ""■ '^ '•'^ <=•"?'—». ^ raison do centD. Pn...W 
quinzo piastres payublos par divers verHemcnU., lo dernier oinouanto «,r,t -" 
pmstres devenu.rl da le 29 sopte„...ro 1883; qu'U nurait d.. for 27 
cpressdrnenwoonvenu uu dit ac.e do veote, ,„-L,/„„, ^^^ /c ,^7^ 

J l.e« ot paco^dade„.ande„r; que I'aete-de vente en ques.ion fu bie„ « 

Scofc aura.t vcndu au socond ddCendeur, Alexandre M^rin, e. impenMs 
am<?liorations ct maison en question en ccttecaiise- n,.n 1» 1Q ♦ ™P«n8e8, 
™^ ann.e (J883), Morin Irait vendu ^^rilZ r^^^j^^^ 
q.»i les oecupe actuollcent, los dites i.pensos, aa,elior«tions'et "as 'que c' 
dcrn.er pa.ement du prix de vente dii au demandeur. le 29 septe i IsSS 

le ddfendeur Jos^^cott et ceux intervenus entre les autrcs ddfendeurs au 

suje de, .oipenses, a«;^liorations et maison en- question en cetto eause solent 

assd, et n„s i n^ant ; a ce quo les dites i.„penL, a.dliorations et lisren 

ZTT VT "'"? ""'"' ''°'"'" '''« '- P™P"^"«^ ^- den,andeur 7t le 
ddfendeur Bas Uen .ondamnd 4 en rcnettre la possession au dit dem^ideur 
enfin. i ee que es paiements faits a„ d.,.a„dear en , eon.pte sur Z prt de 
V n te, Botent d clards faits pour le loyer de I'occupition d^s dites prSes 

i7 ju.llet 1882 entre Ic demandeur et le defendeur Joseph Scott, et les ddpens 
A cettc acHon, les ddfendeurs plaideut conjointcJent-leirs princtaux 
mojens de d fense sont :_Que le den,and«„r n'a pas de privilege ou hZZZ 
.«r les amd .orations par lui^vendues audefcndeur Seott, vft que ees am^bra 
Uons appart.enne„t au fonds^t n'en peuvent et™ s^pardeL. et q„ Z.^n7 
n est pa. et n'a jau,ais etd propridtaire di, fonds qui ,,.p rtic^nt /l^Wan! ' 
Lou-sa Scott; que lor.de ^a vente du 27 j«illct\88lV le de.„a„Lr au 
defendeur Seott, le ciit den.aWur n'avait pas paye «,n %e.- foncier I Del e 
J^et Lou,sa Seott; <,ue le de.„andeur ne pout avoir qu^unVecoui, petson el 

-1 ju.llet 1-883, e denmndeur et le„ddftndeur Joseph Siott q'avaicnfc pas- atisfa t" 
aux obhgatton. de leur bail respectif vis-i-vis la dUe PellcVnet LcJTSJ' % 

Zl eT'r " P^^^'^r*"^- ^ «— « - Po-«sion de la .ilairon^a " 

Sa Seol ?T ^"^^^ ''?"^-»^»-.* ^- Propri^tairo du fonds Delle. J. ' 

JjQuisa bcott ; que le dcmnndnnr ne "—* »»■*—•- ' « ....... 



'■sfj 



■^ti Wtes ventes, sans au. prdalablc avoir rembour.^ 4 I'achetcur le qu'ra rej^ 



^'. 



/■ 



158 



COtril DB REVISION, 1885. 



p. 
J. 



~w 



Prmrhom-do lui sur le prix do vente, co que le dit dcinandeur n'oflFio pns; que le 
P* S t *^*^'*^"^®"'"^ '*"'' '** '^™"^ d'oflFrir la baluiice du prix dfe vento duo nu demand^ur it 
ei ftl?° d'dviter uiiisi la rusolutioti do la ditc vontc^^qu'ils auraient oflfort o6tte dite 
balance avant rinstitution -de lajjr^sento action et roffront a»eo lour ddfensc, et 

les defcndeurs conolucnt Ace qiffe la dite balance ainsi^offcrte dcmeure oonsigndo 
jusqu'aprda lo proiiqn(Sd.du jiRtementj il intervenir, ^o(tr la 4ite somme"etre 
apj)Uqii£c8i& Ics fnus^dvc^^^n jugcment contrc le ilemanileur, et ib 
dcuiandent le renvoi do raetfoiif.4- •« . 

Auj^divers plaidoyei's produits par Ics dtfTendeurs, le demandeur rtpond : que 
la nyiison par lui vendue aq dePendeur Scott est immeubie et par hi susceptible 
® de droit rdel en sa faveur, taut et ausfli longtenips que la ditc maison n'est pas 
d(?niolio, et'que tel droit r^cl existe sur la maison, sans affeoter le fonds en 
aucune niiini^re; qu'advenant uu jugeineut en faveur du denjandeur, ce dernier 
pcut et a le droit d'enlever la dit»|,.«iai8on, impenses et amdliorations, sans que 

lerppopridtaire du fonds pui^se s'y objcoter; quo le propri<5taire du/onds aurait 

accepUS et ratifid la clause rtSsOlutoiro faite en faveur du demandeur, de mgine 

que les autrea stipulations de I'actie de vente qui fait la Ifise de la prdsente 

^ action ; quo le demandeur aurait pay^ en entier le loyer foncier auqiiel il ^tait 

■, tenu ; que le d^fendeur Morin n'indique m6me pas quel monti^t ii prdtcnd 

avoir pay6 pour le demandeur au propri^taire du fonds oomme loyer foncier ; 

\ .* i *l"^ ^* pretention des d<Sfendeurs, que le demandeur est tenu de rembourser ce 

<* .1"*'' " Z^?" en a compte sur le prix de vente, «[8t en opposition direcfe avec les 

\ -r -stipulations contenues en I'aotede vente du ®^illpt 1882 ; que les. actes de 

- vente invoquds par les ddfendeursj a'ont jamaj^gtd enregistrds ; quejes offres 

.,, faites par les ddfpndeurs np peuvent ^re considdrdes oomme bonnes et valables, 

.. yii qu'elles ont 6t6 faites apros la date oonvenire pour le paiement de la balance 

du prix de la vente en question en oette cause, et que lors des dites offres, la 

clause rdsolutoire plus haut citde avait pris eflfot en faveur du demandeur; que 

dans tous kis cas, les dites offres n'otit pas dt<5 faites d'une maniere legale ; qu'en 

- outre, les ddfendeurs sont'mal fondds en demaDi;jlant d. oe que la somme par eux 

ddpOede «Q cette cause, soit appliqude sur les frais, advenant un jugemei^t oontre 

le demandeur. , ' 

Le ditoandeur soumet que le jugement ddboutant son action, esf mal fondd 
pour les raisons oi-aprc^s dnumdrdes : 

Ire Question. — La premiere question a examiner dans cette cause, est celle 
de savoir si, par I'enregistrement, le demandeur a acquis un droit reel sur la 
maison, impenses et ameliorations qui font I'objet du prdsent litigc, malgrd qu'il 

ne soit pas propridta^re du fonds Les- autoritds suivantes ddmontrent que 

cette question doit etre ddcidde pour FaffirmdHve: — "Les bfitiments sont 

" immeubles aussi bi«n lorsqu'il's sont I'ceuvre du propri^taire du «ri que lors- - 

^7"*^ ^ qu'ils ont dtd cnnstruits par lin aulre, par suite itt sont susceptibles d'hypo- 

" th<ique8. 10 Maroade, p. 382. Le preneur, ea mgme temps qu'il est 

^ " locataire du sol, devient proptidtaire des superficies et des ddifices existant sur 

" le sol, comme aussi des constructions et amdlibrations qu'il peut faire et sur 

" *" ' " '" 'elre assises. 10 Mai-oadd, p. 420. XHIF^ 



f /> 



'% 



\; 



t' ' \ ' 


■ ■\ „■ ■ 




•^: 




■ / ' 


^ 


■%;■■■ 


c 



COUR DE JlEVISIOxV, 1885. 



159 



^uldoquun bruunent n'osUmnieublo cjuo quhnd il npp„rticnt au propri^taij%'D 
' du torrairt n'cBt pasc^cto. (Jui n,'emR(?ohc devous vendro ma luhison en w. 

rdservant la propridto dtt terrain la maison n'on sera pan moinsun ^ 

^ ^, ",„,meuble. 2 Maroadd, p. S-H." " Lcs constructions dlcv^cs sur Ic tcrraiu 
' dautru, par cxcmplo sur un fo.,ds.tcnu A bail, constituent do v^ritables • 

immcubles jusqu'i leur jld.nolition, co.u.ue toU, il^ licuveut fitre rcvendiquds 
' par les ayants droit, contro les tiers auj|i,uols ils ont dtd vcudus Do t^les ' 
'' constructiQns sotll^mmcublos ; en cons,5.,uence, la vente quo iMbrmier en fait 
. a an t,crs auquel ,1 cddo son droit au b«il est uno vente im,^obilit^re ct noa 

, ^^ une vente naol,.l,6^ Les constructions dlevdes par u„ tiers sur le terrain^ 

d autrui, et specialeincnt par ui^,|ocataire sur>Ie terrain qui lui a 6t6 donnd i, 
bail, sent ,m„.eubles, et ccla encore bien qu'il ait dtd convenu qu'elles seraicnt 

Ce prinoipe, que la division du droit do propridtd sur le fonds et sut le& 

bat.sse»,nemp6Ae^a8cesderni6re8deconserverleurquaHtdd'lmmeublW a 
td. consaord par la Conr de Rdvision, a Qudbec, en 1871), dans la caus/de ' 
"Chaloult2J«.BdgiivJQ..L.R., p, J19." ' . ■ 

2,neQuestion.~C^^nt a I'exception rdsultant du loyer foncier.que le ddfen- 

^ de^r Monn prdtend. avdfil'pnyd pour le denmndeur, oboso qui est nullement 
prouvde et qu, est nide, cola ne pent dans tons les cas en>p6cher la rdsolution do" 
la yente dont il est q«e8^# en cette cause. On n'indique mgrne pas quel 

. "ontant on aurau a,ns. ^d pour le bdndfice du demafdeur. D'ais.les 
d fendeurs ne pouva.ent oflrir d^utre moyen de ddfcnse sur ce point, que celui' 
de demander 4 ce qu'.ls n. fusse^f condamnds 4 ddlaisser, qu'd Ucha;^ par le 
demandeur de rembourser ce quUurait pu avoir dtd ainsi payd pour lufLme 

^art. J072. nins ies circoostances, le ddfendeur Morin ne peut avoir qu'ua 

cet'U T"" "•"';2 '''•"''"'■ *•* Scott et^ontre le demandour'pour 
' ce qu il alldgue avoir ddbbursd pour eu#^ . ■ 

•'.Jll^Tt"'""? «'"f'V'"^"*'"''"* ^' savoir. sidles ddfendeurs peuient 

^ n^p^cher le demandeur de rfcouvrer la posspion de sa proprjdtd, en oftant la 

balance du pr« de vente, le demagdeur souTet^que ces offres des ddfendeu^ 

affeetent nullement son droit a la prdsente aoUon en rd^olntion, vft la elZ 

^m^on..nue en I'acte de vente du g^^uiUet 1«82 :L« A Jdlaut cJS 

les d.te pa.ements o« aue«ne partie ddux aux 6po<tue8 y stipuldes Z 

dsent^vento deviendra nulle et de hul effet, et 1, ditVendeu' aur' le U 
de Jenfendre la possession des dites impenses. aindllon.tions%t maison sans 
en^ur^r .a„ dn acqudreur aucun.ou auouns des paiomenia firits en ;l^^ 

' If leT Tr:'"^"''' P"^""*" o« paieinent seront coi^iddrd^ 

pour le loyer de I'occupation des ditfes prdmi^^es." Exbibit Ko 2 Z 

demandeur, dernidre cfeuse. ^ ^»"io« xyp, z d* 

En^eolarant Jes offres des ddfendeurs s«ffisantes,>honorable juje de la Cour 
Infdnenre a . par \ refuatf do dong>eg^fe<, Aoett^ J ^ «« « ^o«r 



- jt 



les parties. II est admia que le dernier, 



=^vention tffitgi'^enue enfre" 
paiemcn^ duVix de vente n'a 






I a pas dtd 



IViid'hom- 

nie 

vs.. ', 
['. dcott 
ft ul. 



^' 




*'i. 
% 



»-- .-J— -^ 



<■ '-tk 



' 'K*- If 



y I 



»';. ' 



160 



COUR DE .IJi: VISION, 188R. 



J. P. Scott 

«t «I, 






m 



'■^ 



mj *"•* ^ I'iSpoquo cpnvenuo: con«5quommoht, le domnndcur a lo droit de so 
pr<5»Qloir de cctte olauiie rdsolutoire qui fait la biise de son notion. Do m^f 
que dans le oas do vcnto iivcc faculto do rdmdrd, lorfBe'vl doouloinent du tompi,: 
ontralne la forfaiture do tous droits oUxquols lea defcfndeurs pouvaiont prdtendro 
ctdonne au domandpur le droit do reprondro la , possession de lo olioso vendue, 
Bans qu'il soit bcsoin do miso on d«mcure. ■* 

La Cour SuprCm^ a rdceninient donnd -plcino force et effct A una dausc 
absoluuicnt identiquo ct a mis do c6i«5 I'offro du paiomont dan's ,1a cause do 
• Granger ct *:^cLcunan (jugoment rendu en juin 1883). Les rcniarquOs. 
Buivantcs fai^s par , to savant jugo RSfeh^o, pcuv>nt s'appliquer i 1:» prdsentT 
, cause : " I ImTvo conic to the same conolusion as the l^roed chief justice of the 
" Court of Appeals (§ir A. A. Do^ion), vi2.i that the condition on whioh the 
" promise of sale was made, not havwg beota. complied with, within the time 
'"spcoified in tho^coutract, the conf^act afid the law placed biru en demeure, and 
" there was no necessity for any^emand, ' the necessity for a demand boiDg. 
I' entirely inconsistent with the terms of the contract ' which ilnmediatoly thc^ 
" failure of the performance of thd covenant ipso facto oliango the relations of 
" tlie parties from vendor and vendee to lessor and lessee." 

L'honorable juge Fournior, dans la memo cause dite Laurent, Vol. 17, No. 
114, ttu Bujetde la clause" resolutoire expresse: "Co qui la caraot<5ri8e/ct la' 
"distiaguede la condition resolutoire taoite, p>t qu'elle opdre d6 plein droit, 
" c'elt le seul accomplissement de la condition qui rdaout lo contrat; 11 no fau't 

" pas autre chose, ni sommatio'n, ni demande judiciaire La raison en.cst 

" trds simple, c'est que telle est la volontd des parties contractantes formellomedt 

" cxprimde, et la volonti des parties fait leur hi No. 129.^ De Id suit que 

" dans lo cas de rdsolution expresse, lo juge rdguli<iremeBt n'intervient point, 
" c'est le contrat qui d'avance a prononcd la resolution. A plus forte raison le 
ytige ne peut-il pas dicider que le^contrat ne sera pas risolu quoique la 
"condition risolutoire soit accomplie. Gq sorait violet I'art. 1134 d'apros 
" lequel la convention tient lieu de loi, et cette loi oblige le juge aussi bicn que 

*' les parties contractantes." " D'apres ocs autoritd.s, continue le savant juge, 

il esk clair que ni la mise en demeure, ni Taction on rdsolution ne sent ndcessaWs 
pour faire produiro i la conditionjes consequences dont les parties soril con-, 
venues." ]' . ' ^ 

Nous attifons partiouliArement I'attention de-cette honorable Cour, •sur les 
rcmarques suivantcs'faites jRir le mi5me juge au sujet de la mise en demeure* 
'I En^ertu de I'aft. 1090 C. C, dit-il, ce qui n'est dft-qu'a terme ne pcut <5tre 
"cxigd avant V^chdanco. Done jusqu'au premier octobre, I'appolant n'avait 
" rien k demander, mats lelendemain,Ja ddohia ace 'dtant arrivdo, quelle mise en 

" demeure pouvait4l faire? Demander paiomeat? C'ettf^td rciioncer 

" au bdndfiee de la ddofceancc. Lui demander de rdsilier la promesse'de'Vente ? 
" Elle retait par I'eflFet de la convention. II n'y avait done qu'i demander* 
" possession de la propriete. Le ddbiteur, dit I'art. 1067 C.C.,' pout etre 
'1 °°°^'^^!!"^^"- '^"°'""^'^' soit |>ar ^ea tehnes Wemeg du contrat, lorsqu'il contieut: 
...-•— . . . Tl^iapS'pdun'acoompliraura ceteffet. 

-•■fc,. • ■ - '■ ...■■'. 






♦ \ 



■5. 



■J"' 

JjSf:' 



Vw^O 



?:0 



y. 



COUI^ DE RBVISIO;^, 1886. 



161 



' " C'««t oe qui a 6t6 convonu entro les parties do lu^ uiniiiiire la plus dairo et laB* 
-^ phis positive. Cetle miso on d'uincuro est sufiBsante pour, exiger I'ex^cution du 

Dan's cotto m6me onuro do Or«i,f;o''r et ^Iciennan, le savant juije HenrV 

^^ s exprime com.uo suit : " The only difficulty that prcHented itself to my mind in 

-■ St "'■'5""''"' *"» *''•*' •"*"«' ''•"' ♦'»« olijcction presented to a mise en demeure 

^n looking, at the authorities, I have come to the coueluHion that tlMt pro- 

" ccediiig was unnecessary." ? ' 

4mc Qmiion.— Norn afrivons maintenant au dernier eonsid<Srant du jugement 
.rctid^ par la Cour In%ieuro et qui » trait A la ddolarution du demandeur, lors* 
dos offres qui.lui furenl faites le 2 octobro 1883 (voir Mmission des parties) d, 
mm, qu il dtait prfit i. aeoepter le demter paiement du prjx do vente, malgrd 
quo le termo oonvenu fUt o,pir^, A la qonditidn qu'o„ le remboursfitdo la somme 
de 84^40-par lu. payde pb^r reni'egistremont du oontrat de -vente. Nous croyons 
: avoir demontrd olairement, (Jue la balance du pri»de yente n'ajant pasdtd pay^e 
au temps convenu, la vente s'^ tropviSo rdsolue dfi ploin droit par les termes du ^ 
coperat X.e demandeur rentrait alor^ dans son droit de propridtd sur Pimmeublo 
vendu, de meme que si I'aote d« vento n'etti jamais exists, it avait done le ' 

- droit de poser ses conditions, puisqu'il redevenait propridtairo; libra aui ddfen- 
deMrs de les aceepter ou ^e les refuser. On ne pr^ndra pas que la condition 

- impos6o^^aWomandeur dtait tropondreuse. /- , 

Mais supposons memo que la clause rdsolutoire n'existe pas, et que le 
demandeuT occupy »is-,i-v|^ les <^endeurs la position du vendeur ordinaifo- , 
a-t-il droit (»ntre son aoheteur,*u rftaboursement de ses frais d'enrteistrement ? 
L article 1479 C. C. r&out oette question dans I'offirmative: " Les frais d'actea 
et oM^m accessoires A la vente sont & la charge .le I'aeheteur, i moins d'une 
. stipulation contraire.-;., .pMous^fs auteurs s'aoiiordent a consid^rer comma ^ 
frais acccssoires, ceux de ?enr?gi8t«ment^ eontrat: " L'aeta d«rvente dtank 
ndcessaire il I'aeheteur pour av(4, .au besoin, le moyen deji^ver la propriete 
qu .1 acquiert, e'est dope 4 lui, tSu^ natu^lleiuent, de payM diffdrants/raf, 
denreff^remmt, ^ftanscriptioU,- d'honorairesjde notSTet autres. qua^ 
ndcessite la rdd^otion rdgiiliire de I'acter 6 Marcadd, p. 190i' .....Sic ' 
Auranton,XVI, No.124. .T^plong, I, No. 164. * r . - ^ 

A tpuUvduetncnt, ces offres dey^deursn'ofltp^s^td faites d'^ 
legale, iKestodmisde la part Wddfendeurs qugi^arm} I'atg^ht offerfe au 
demandeur, ^ar I'^ou^e de Joseph" Scotf I'un des diflpendeurs, se t^vaii 
. un bilkt de di^^piastres de la Banquede.:^ontrdal e?SS autrfede cinqiiafitUl 
^ k mnm de (^dbec. C^ «ffres ne sont pas en conformity de I'art^b 1163? 
t.aqu.d.t^que "las offires doivent gtra faites. en monhaies courantes et ei/ 
^^p^es rdgldes par. la loi," Le papier-monuaio ne pent servir aux O&es 
rdelles, a 1 eideption des bUlets de la Puissance. 

'<^^*^^"^ " "^^"^ ■' "^ •^°*'" ^' '» Cour Supdrieur*. Voici les. 
■considerantsde ce jugement: ' ; - • ' 

A'ttendu que le demagdoHr. de 



mo 

XP. Seott 
ct al. 



senti au nomnid Jos. Scott le 27 juillet 1882, etalldgue ^ua le dit demande^li; 



-^;.- *i .:,.Xu_-"-i. !- j^- . 



.^ 



Ukf^ 



1 I 



» < \ 




X, 



.Mi 



%' 



^a>">i'«. 



mi ^ ■ 




». 1^.1 i'lom. 1^ dp Belle. 

. U». fait ties unpen* 
'• JtJ{*"' conHtruoUon d'u 
om($lioran|nsot 
1^ dcttfief deVena 
une ipuRe do rd-to 
que dans Id oaslde 
dcf {)rdrivioos; flue 
Scott a vopduJftU 



COUR DB REVISION, 1885. 

-a : ■ 






I'h 1881, un lot vacant tdt\f, 
iineliorntiona sur oo lot, oo 
^aisort ; quo plustnrd ; liivoir 
|i\,iHon nil dit Jo|||ph S(^ pour 




ain4i|oroiions ct qtie o 




lo29^ 
pour Icj 

iiiS&o' Mol; 
fallcni^ 





fOBt^ 

cl%i ^orsomViita agt 



int 6ti^%<MRi^<Sr<$R iXita potir t'dccujpii 
'a eUJTftnregistil^' at que plug tM^^ 

i» d|l^^|||A^!^'ct 

,.du 29.Reptonkl|^|^»<;n%t|)'#'^y« 




l^' 



* 



^* 



Ti'*, 



sjw 



dW%idor la r^^iij^ti 

d^|i«cur» out pia1di§^iii|(||fcf|(!li§Bf'divcr» nipybna, I, 
„, * °°A"'^ """""^roi* i^o^jp^our leiFi amdlioratioris qu'il a 
^0 <!,fe anniJlioratiens itu /0td»m&aio no peuTent|jpi|dtre 
iroandcur n'jjtont patprtfprie^e du fond n'a auoune hypothd- 
ot n^^possAde qo'uB reijou^^rsonnel oontro le dit Scott : 
•ellc Scott do laquello Id iMBaieur a joud a accepts le 
lenrea payment du piix du baily qU'illlfeti^per^ novation et que le 
>den^|ndiBjii^ ne.pctit obttenir la rdsalutioH,dd la vei^ sans lo oonseKlcmont de la 
ditePclld ^oott. 3. Qiio Id demandeur eat noji-rdibe^e 4 demander la rdaolution 
<ld la ^ite ^nanl^o^r jfu prdalable ofiert :de^>e^d>ci^E!i' ce qu'il a re^u aur son 
^rixti? vente,^ %'^ lea ddfendeura sent en droi'e (Soikj faire liB^ror de Taction 
^J^'"*^^ ®^ <**f#"Me piycr la aofnmd r^iiimfiojlkqu'ila ont fait avant Tac- 
tion et««[jqu*ill|ipifi5^i>t oncore.de faire aveoleurplni^^^ . 

Attenaa qutfpai'l©; jupcm'cnt dont eat appeUl eat d^olard que le demandeur 
'B'a pas j^rrtuve aqn dr^dtt d'i'ciiW , '^ 

Con8i(^ri»nt qaWtorrae deb afticlea 376 et 26l7idu Codo Civil les fonda do 

tcrrcs etl<!|!bati^ent8 soqt imineubles gar lour liit|I^a^ que Thypothique Wtend 

9ur touteajfes atw6lior«lion survenaea dopuia 4l4iiBtoeu^^ 

. '. ' Considerant que lea construotiona dlev^ea-sur Id [otdti queation, par le deman- 

. ' ^ : deur a Tdpoque oii il le tftnsiitJ^ bail, oons^ituenti(e|v'jfritables immoubleajuaqu'ak 

' leuc ddmolit^on et ne peuvent 8tre revendiquds par le demaQdeiir ou aea ayattt 

) causes contro lesi tiers auqucia ila ont dte vendas. f ■ [, tW 77^ 

Con^^iddrant que lesdites ioi^licyrations ddvanfc gtris traitdea coJnmo tellea, il 

"s'onsuit qu'en enregistrant son titre, le demandeqr ajcquid un dr(ttt r^el aur oes 

, immeubles, droitq^'il.pe*tftfire valoir aTencontrd»|lePendeura*T ' •• 

^Considdrantque fii^dikWance a ©t^opdrde do riBKi* par>^d^faut do paic- 

mpnt en vcrtu do 1* clause rewlutoirc, contedHJKntrat suadit, et que l«, 

dejnandjJIiJdtait pas tenu d'acoepter ^'iffg^MKmkt faite aultedquemment 

' ^ ?*^'®jfl^fr°^' fl"^''''"" <5'^aH loisible d«H||K*f'' <^° ^'^ ^''^ ^^*"se rd^lu 
toire, cMMRnder 4 Stre raia en posaessiol 
Conaiddrant que lea otB0 son't insuflSsa- 
fefusd de payer.au doman*deu| lea Traia de 



A. 



4 



impetiaea «^ amdlioratioas# 
^nt que les defendeura ont 
icnt du oontrat de vente 
IS fraia d 'aoteg ct< ^ut r e8 



"S- 



■7 -7^'- 



Lil. 




7.- 



COUR DB REVISION, 1885. 



i 



1 



,..? 

i 4 



1C3 



OnsocUimullol'iiolodo rente da "Tinill.. 1000 ' , 
«fende„r Soot, dc™„, Mlro J A il I f ^ °" '" '° ''"'"•^"•' «' l« 

CL'I*Bn. Ifeo Bourgeois, dissident.) . Jugement tenvers^. 

^ iV. Champagne, avocat du deniandeur 

^^ce., ^6a««oZa7e<.lf«r^-„c«„, avocats des intiuids, 



Prnd'boa^ 

me 

»«. 
P. Scott 
et ai. 



j^' > 







■, J- / ♦; \-; 



a3$ 



■,.?; 









-■.£■:■■ '■"/ 









164 



OOUR m REVISION, 1886. 



« 4 



COUR DB REVISION, 1886. 

MONTIIBAL, 31 DROEMBRB 1880. 

Prddonti :Jca lioo. Juges JoHtJaoN, DoRiRTr ot Hatij^eit, 

HUBERT LAVALLEE, 

'•"■'■■?•.. ' #• 

WILLIAM PAUL, 



X 



\ 



(Vimandtur), 

IhtimI, 






{DiftndtuT), « 

Joai:— Qu« Itf cautiomiement Judiciaira. doitdtre pour ana Bommaffxe 3e dcoiln (art. 
Z034O,C.) ' . < 

Que le caiiUtfuncraent, judiciaire, dam rinitanot, ayaof'^tA cflregiitrft turlcd 
Jn>meubl6i du deinandeur, ce dernier a droit de demander la radiation 
~3:~r ' ^ *UdlUhypoth6que, (art. 2160 0.0.) 

Le domandettr s'^taft 'jport^ oautiqo pour un nommd Alfred Chaflond, pour 
' ies fins d'un apflel que ee dernier portait & la Cour du Banc do la Reine, dim 

Ju^ment rendu contre liti, en Cour ^updrieure & la pourauitf du d^fendeur ell*^ 
/ cetto cause. ' . », ' ' • s, ,, 

J^ oatrt^nnement est dans Ics termes Ies plus gdojiraux. Aiix exig^oos dc- 
la loi, le demandeur et sa caution conjointc a'obligorent t\ r<$poadrc.g^ndralc- 
lucnt & la cdndnmnation qui sorait port A contre rappol»Dt>«r la/Gour d'Appcl. 
Ce oautibnncmeni n'indique pas fo luontant ^^r lequel lea oauuons se renduient 
rosponsables. ^^e d^fcodcur en cette cause,- pr;^tcndnnt qudrce oautiouncQicnt 
comporte une qbligation ayant Teffot de lui donner hypothfiquoScn J.'enrcgiatrant 
au bureau d'enrcgistremcnt du comt<5 de Richelieu, I'a fuit^^cgistrcr 'atoc un 
avis au r^gistrateur, d<$oIarant que lea propridtda Immobi^rcsLdu do«aand§urj diJ^i- 
'►gniScs dans I'avis se trouvaient gdnd^alenjent affeoldes^jL hypotl»di|u^os, eU sfc (a- 
veur, par renregistretuont de co oautionnenient. -Cot flVm a^indions pas le n)on^apt 
de I'hypoth^ue. Le demandeur^ youlayt transiger aur ses propri($t«Sa imniobi- 
li6res, a, alors connu I'cnrcgistrenient des pieces du ddfcudeurot a, %n niCmo temps, 
• constatG que tel enrcgistremont renipfichait de dtsposfer de eca proprietda. If a 
requis le defendeur.d'avoir ii rayer cea rtscriptious, ce que ce dernier a refuse •• 
de faire. Sur ce, le deniandeur a porto la pr^s{!nto action, aous I'autoritd dc 
I'article 2150 du Code Civil; et la pretention du domundcur k gavoir : quo 
renregiatrement d'un oauti^nnement gdiicral, ne coujpprtant ^aa I'obligalion dc 
. payer un montanfc ddtermind ne produit pas d'hypoih^uo en faveur de ccjui 
♦ , pour qui il est donnd, a dtd maintenue par la Ceur Infdrieure. 11 sombkquo 
°'Octte pretention est indiseutabic. ' \ . ' 

'* Le ddfendeur prdtend avoir une hypotl;ioque judiciaite par renregistrement " 
- du cautionftenicnt gdndral en question aous I'autoritd d'eTar^i^^le 2034 du Code 
"Civil, qui dit: '*. L'hypotheq*ip rdsulte de tout afete d& jM^uttonnementTc^u en 
Justice, .ou de tout autre ficte ou procedure judioiaire,,cr«5ant ro6?4'fl[<M»j <fe 
^^patfer une somme d6tennin6e, et eat aoumise aux rfigfea contenuea dan? I'a* 
5le 2026" qui veut que cctte hypotbdque n'afiFo<jfe"que lea^ immeuWea 
dana |in gvia riBqudraat cnrcgiatrcmept .'Or, le- 'cautionneoient en 






T 



j\ 



" 'm- 



1 • 



A. 



COUR DE REVISrON, 18J?5.. 



m 



' Ti. 

Wm. l>«u|. 



/ ' "AOTOattiN-Du DEMANDKUlf. " 

Article 2034 (ittCodoeUrilCanadlor. ^ 

" 2160 "7 " « « ".« ' 

Laurent, Vbl; 80;.in,«|,, 226, No. 248. ''-••■'.'.. 

' IZ ^t^, OnU -„^.H l«ctio„ d« do™„„dcur inti™.. 

„ «ur .ppel| la Lour do Rdv,».o„, 8o;«^„»,o„t f«t oonflnnd unoaimomont. 

I Remain el Oermnin, pgur I'intiriid. ' 



*■ 



I GOtJR DU BANG BE LARfilNB. 

: »„ , (En Ai'I'el.) " • 

. MONTRfiAL, 10 MAI 1H8C. 

Carum DoRioN, C.J., Monk, Hamhav, Cross et Babt, JJ. 
bvl BLANOHAflD, 



V\ 



««** 



T8. 



THE CANADIAN FIRE INSURANOK OOilPllfy 



•ribA; 



April, ANT, 



iNTlilfci. 



' DoRioNr^-ag6^«|Hief^ - .1 WMiLinji " 

■ The Q^ur^of opinion that the motion should not be granted iHRPt 
othmg to pretfent an e«eutiop-6f a jud,„„ent for the paft w „h is^dS 
It was analogous to the ease of a t«tbr.. renderin<> an account Th„l 
contest for pprt of the account, but execution m^v !. r .f' "' ""^ 

by the tueor1,htle the contestaUon VTerer7rt'Is';i:g^r"" ''"""' 

aojgj^pour I'appelanh • " •*^'*''°" "•^'^«'«''- 

- Loh^Ml puviii, pour rintimd. ii 




■<f. 







- nWN^, 



.^ 



ii6 



,i# 



COURT OFUKVIKW, 1880. 



; 



lifa 



■w* 





■■•»„4» 



'^ 
>. 



COUllT Of RBVIKW, 1886. 

■, . 'I 

(NTUKAL.-lftw JAN.UAIl>r, I8h«. 
J<]|IM80i4, 'lASOIIRaiAU Ot DoilRftTY, JJ. 

LU88IKIt, ViAiHim, 

CIIAYKTH, » DirifMDAHT. 

,«llaif (— TiMt » |i>at«nt It r««|N>n«ible fur tht met of bii luiaor ton, wb«(b«r done in Ua 
\ pnMncf or nut. (ArV^^^^|) '^ 

JoitNROif, J.-Xj\iii000llfK^^i ("ilMki oiMHi for $50 Olid oo«tt in an 
aotiqu brought fbr SlOO to recover (iaiutgon n^niiiMt the dufendant aa the futhur 
of liU minor j«»^H^o woa aHugod to iiuve fright«ocd a horoo, on tvhiol\^,|lho 
minor son drthe pluin^ff waa ridtni;, and thorvby oauiied ii^ury to the boy, wno 
VIM viding it;, There Are two qucRtiona: FirHt, the responsibility of the father 
defendant, fbrlihe eotnequences of hifi son's act, done not in his.preflcnoo. The 
French Ityi and oiir own ore the snnie on tliia point. The futlier is responsible 
for tlie acts of thoHolwiiom he has under liis control — liis minor children, lor 
i-tctiuiple. See art. I(w4 O.'O, L;iroaibi^re, oommonting upon the analogous 
tiolo of the French vodo, at No.'24, shows that this control docs not involve 
lu pr«Honoe of the parent. Then tlio weond question would bo, whethu the act 



\ 



t 



\fil\\a defendant's son was ffic ouu<u) of the accident. Thj^teCy rais^jnJH htmds 
and shouted, niid the horse onrrytn^; the other boy NWcrfHftnd tlir^w his riif^jl 



% 



Jit U pleaded thut<the horse wns yQUng and shy, and it is bliown that soon aft 
^rds tiif same horso^ caused another accident by swurviug or shying oa th 
roa^iKcBut there is evidence also that the oocawion which gave rise to the present 
action was the first time the animal had misbehaved, and as "cc n'tat on/ If 
premi^ pai'^d coiit^' ho^got worse aUer that, we cannpt<b<^p seeing from t|jo, 
•cvJdcnoA that the 



^''^^J 



w«Mi n _ 

M/jf, ol; the defuu3unt,'i|[ son wa,H inttndnd mlMliicvou.Mly. 
* ^ Jnd''iiieut coufirmed with costs. 



./V^jmi<a'»i«-iifejC'o., atlo^yS for ph^tiff, 
.7'/(J^> .rpr, ojtoruP fordefcn«Rt. 



-♦■* 



/ ;^^.'\COUltT OF QUEEN'^ ^KNGH, 18Sa. 

<P^. • "^MONiteALr^Trn j(||fUAR¥^l880. '" 



^ . 






, ' Present : DoBioi*, G.J., R^rtitt,°TB88ifeR^>ilfco88 J* 



, Xf... ' 



f: 



•«»» 



1 






^ ■ »■ «... 




■ ■> '> 



«** * liHpEB-iJcSHAxE. „ 'J^ ■ 

', , . ^ (J^ff$nditm in tht Coitrt below,) 

• ' ■ * '■■,,*; ■'■. ' • ■ V-" .' Appkllant, 
- AKb, — ' i - ' 

. *^ w »,„, - ' !' iPlaitaifintht Co^rt below,) 

RiSPONDJKNT. 

l|Bt^i> i-^^^W^jfunder the Co^e of Ctvll Procedure thefe is no appeal from a jutlgment upon 
:% .Ml a 3110 wd/ra/iiai relating to' public «Hice8. '^ '^ 

"' "^wRio^- C. J. — This was a proceeding hjj[ quo warranto to oust Mr. 

' - McShane h'om Jiis- scat in the City Council. An exception to tlie form was 

,^lcd, alleging that the proceedings were wrong, inasmuch as the proper course 

■was not by qim warranto, .but t])|e procecdin'jp should have bccQ tfrkep undnr 



/ 




«? 



/ 



OOUBT OP RBVIHW, 18M. 



167 



■ ^- 



Procedure there w no nDim«l from « In I ""P"""- Umlar the Code of 

very good resHon. If thero weru a.. .«„ i • • " '"""''*^ '^"' * 

eo .it w.. „h«i,e„^d would .rz Id Lt;:r; * t"""-" "'^"^ 

6\ /A Stephen, attorno, for re.pondont. ^^^ ^^'*'"'' "'J'^"'^- 

-W«»'c«r d' Qo,, attorne|p6r appollunt. "^^ 

f COUBT OP JIKVIEW. # 

fe MONTREAL, FKUHUARV 27tii, lg80 

Pre«ont : TOKBANOK, JetTE AND JiMON. J.J 
J. B.A. PLBau, 






TIIR CITY AND DIHmoT SAVINGS BANK, 



PuiXTirr, 

DKflCNDANT. 



llttP :-Th«t a judgment quMbing an at.^ohmw bcfon. liM. .. !>'"''"*''*". , 

^# oY,ce r«lea.e. the pro%r.y »e.°e? TL .h? ^ '^«^'"'"" "» "'«"" "•«*, at 

*^ . .a..,t pa, it over to^hroLT: Ltr.ul^'er *!"!: ""f 1'" "'" -"• 

la a case of Hurrd V8 Pima ^ O M ",„"<"' o '"'I"- 

JETTE,J.-The plaintiff brou^ht an option nsainst th^mmk,A n- . • 
Savings B.nk to recover the an.ount- of I ,l.r^Tlu' '^M^ \ ^"^"°^ 
been ^ized by one Barri. The attaeh.ent wl q" l?W/j'"V''"^ 

'"•*l.fr«(WM,„„h,d,|„ But were .t lih.,... "oinont the 

^n^^^tfc Z>a«;»rf, attorhoys ftjr plaintiff.' 



ll 



III 



■■f'l 



itmrhmid d-sDuuuvt, \iu,iu^ya ibr defendaot. 



^ 




/ " 



I 

IH 



'In— 



COCJIIT OF gUEKNS BKNCII, 18««. 



•f 



couirr OF qukkn h bknch, \m\. 

(AvPtAh HlOB.) 

MONTKRAh, UAROII iUn, UN. 

Pnm^IP Dorion, C. J., rROiiN, TiHHrtR, Monk and Ramrat, J.J. 

No. MO. 
HARTLAND HT. CLAIR MACDOOOALL H «/., 
{J'laiHtifi tn M« C'Awri l^fA>«f,) 

URORUK URUKR8, 

■| {,lti/»ndant in tht Ctuft lulom,) 

Rripomiimt, 
Huo :— tiiiit traBiMtloni by a broker on nmrtftn, wh«re ao itclUAi dcJtrcry !■ contain- 
pl.ileii bv tli« pHrticit, in K K'^ioblioff contract ; ami n broker fa«i no right or 
recovery from hl« princiiial of lurat expended on bi« account In tti« coiirit 
of «uob cuntracL 

Ramhav, J.,*(iliB«fntinjr) — ThiiJ in nn notion by ft broker and coniinij'sion 
merobonl ip recover frnui (lefendaiit, liiN principal, tbo huiu of $l,2.'i0.90, od 
certain tRiimiictioiin in strain. 

To thin action tlio deionittint pleaded Kpcciiilly : (1) Thot the opcrotioDB wore 
fietitiuuH iind Hinmlatod, und that thodcbtM contrnotod wore ^aiubiiug dcbt^^ 
which could not bo rocovo^rud by action ; thut there wun no obligation to deliver, 
but only to pny a diffcroiico, nnd the contract Wim gnnih|inf4 or wngering ; that 
the goods Wore not delivered to defendant; that they were tievcr in the poMcn^ 
Bion of pliiiiitiff^, who was not in n poiiition (o fulfil hit* sotfiruct ; that the plain- 
tiflb sold without authority, and wore guilty ofgrods nogii^cnce, and inuNt Huffur 
4ny Iomc»< r'U.stnined ; (2) it is pleudud thut the defenduiit neither authorized the 
purehoaeH nor the eule<«. 

The pleadinj'H arc completed by a (ifc/rw/rc e»/<«V. , , 

[n a breath, then, the defendant riny.H : I luade a coiitrnot with you cznelly as 
you 8iiy fdid ; but it was illegal and void; I had traimuotionH with you, but I- 
never apthoriced you to buy or to Hull, and you niismunagod niy affuirH ; and, 
lastly, i never contracted with you at ull. It la not lioocKsary in this cone to 
enter upou the (|uet<tion as to how fur the rule expressed by the hroairdtjui 
ejccipit nun fenxdur coi*/ehii gocH, or how far it is affected by article 144, '^ 
C.C.i*. ; or whether it rests od the same principle as the ladiviaibility of the 
avcu, or is co-exteiit»ivo with it or related to it in any way. It will, ^oWevor, 
sacarccly be questioned that the existence of a spcoinl exception will tend to give 
credibility to evidence of the existence of the debt. Taking this view^ three 
questions present theiueelvea : — 1. lb the authority of appellants to buy 'and iiSf-'i 
sell established ? .% if established, is tlio contract shown to be one other thaa 
it purports to be on which no action will lie? 3. If the original contract Was 
gauibltnjf, would this affect the collutorol ooiitmet between a gniubtcr a<td a noo- 
• gambler ? ' . ^ ' / 



/ 






i 






- coufty ()F QPMs rg bench, mji, jg„ 

At lb« flm .rKumtal, •i^«ir.Bt.' Iwk «f .othorllj ^^ ^ ».,, «rf„„.i. 

, »gtocomth.«-|,«. Thyl.aowoI.arI,l«^„i^c.a^^i^7.fr^' 7^^ 

■ faeium. I„J«,J. u w«. too <,Ur to b, decently d «W AiT 1 TP""*^""* * 

» w« In word. .l„.ittcd that ip tr.n«ctio„/df " r^.„,tli.tT "'.rr"' 

f-tur, delivery carried on by w^.t .r. called Jj^ l7 , L if » r 

•rtvor the lom br riie op f«ll i« «i.- i i^ ™*'^8""'' "»»* ", bj tn nmount to 

power to .1, Id on th! .J'Z^/ *,T •'^'''•' *"• ^^ *" ''"^ '"^ ^^« 
qulbbl. to protend .nythi^g 1 TrZ of thT"" '' "t '^ T"" »" * »""• 
d«c«d by .ppellenu. >hl. wr.lenl h ""'""/"•••["'♦•J '-"""^-J Pn>- 
Court belor It would hi Jh«X^^1^^^^^ T'**" '" ^''' 

jrvm ail, enu U) our tmnaaotion oiinnnt be aubioct of u mait f.^, *i - r 

ron, n^ nely. I, the contract one which the law di^jouruffo. so fur «« t.rr 
tiio parties to it the right of action ? ^ourugo. ao lur as to rofaw 

8 there any ,uch evidence in this case? The learned jud«e in the Cour.- 

» R»«, i. ^b«*. hold .h.. .h. , Ji. .b, JI* ^^ S^-,f .t"!"!' 

".•' .. . . '■°' "^ '■"'»""■ » ""»« i" 'iow of nnlu to he reali.cd h, a^ 



" m. Olalr 
N*e«t««Mll 



O UwMia. 



.Ofe^ 



nor hmnm a th»-bmguiB fa u prtme (|b. lUJj 
JvLY, Vol. 30-^No. 7. 



^^ 










170 



|i' 



I 



COURT OF QUEiBN'S BENCH, 1886. 



Mac^oiJMU '"?'*''''' '''' presumed to be a wriger from the fact jilone th*t the price W" 
el an 



I 

O. Dem'era. 



S.I 



X^' 



y 



■ettled by the pnyment of a difference (lb. 11.) 

Is tber« anything in thi.s transaeiion to give a special gigpifioanoo to the facts 
tneptioned ? The rcttp^ndent has not attempted .to shmr any. He examines 
Mr. Mapdougall, ifho answers point blank tlint it was at the option of there*- ' 

^ deut to liavc hud the bargains cfFeotiTCly ciirried out.- Mr. Dcmers says that he 
is iiot to be believed in this, and tfaatJit was oi^ly a bet on rise and fall. But 
tlie testimony pf. Mr. Macdojugall 8upp<?i-ts the coutraot, that of Demers is against" 
.it* Again wc are told that we arp 'to presume that th^, contract was simulated 
becauuc there were many, trunsactinnd between appellantAaYHl„resp0ndent, aild in 
nt)nc of tiieiu was there cv^r delivery.. Tliis is au excellent Bpecimcn of a moii 
tequitcr^l). Ninty-nine illegal contracts will not establish that%he hundredth is 
_"iUegal, jfist as widetice qf a toan stealing.teH loaves of bjread wili not prove that 

f he di(fn't buy the eleventh (ji). It is not proved' that the other contracts were 
simulated beciaiuse there wa» no'deliveryj as jib been alreiidy said of tfiis ol^e. 
The logicul conclusion, thetfv to which ri&spdn dent seeks to lead us amounts to this 
•' Yott mnst iiocept as ptjof of friud in'thja case Jthe" existence of other biuSilar 

--cast'" i» wiiich tiaud is liot |proved:>»' §ee note 11, 8iK«y on Art. 1«95 0. N. 
It. is quite possible that' a. great deal of gamblilng may to carried, on up'der , 
fiiinnJnfed contraft?! f^f'^alc, but the question \jt) hftve jto dVtei<l*>is whaliri" itlias;) 
be<^n pio"0'l th;it tl)is is n:io of thoro. . Again, if it be y|ptoi mined to put t^ end 
to the possibility of^making gambling contraotsin this way, the Legislature. has ' 
©nly to (leciurc that Sales for future deliveyycan only be made between juirties 
who have got. the ortide, the existence of whitfh i| guaranteed ly'thaitJaithfiU 
voudu.i--;' wiUL-hcu-o rcccijjt—and'themohtiy lata bag. 

contract/ ' ~ . . i -= 




;,a. *. 






•r 




th!# ti.o p rsdn wlio jiK_v>( i gunWuig ilebtfor iun.lii'orlihali'ifofc rfccover from ilio 
Iiriiicinal tiie ainounr. mat he iius^so paid, It is not "claimed under- ^a gamine 
eoiitraet or a bet."' .* •" ' ' ' - 

There can be no doubt tlvatjf moncyjbe advanced for an immoral or an illegal 
puipCiSi-vor even with an object wliicti; under the circumstances, is in\pr<$per &g 
Pothier says, mandat No. 8, the iponoy oapoot be recoyered hack by tht Render. 
But ifi order to bring- the case of a ^natling debt qithin this rule, it is lieoM- 
sat-y in tlie first place to show that a gambKnjg 4^t is either immoral, illicit dr, . 
under the circumstances, improper, -ffae iTngfip Siatf te 8 and & Vic. o. 109, 
contains a disposition very similar to our article 1927^.^, C. It is as'followV: ' 
. "'All contracts or agreements, whether by parol or'iit writing, by way of 
ing orwageMng, sball bo null an^ void,"and po suiuilwll be biroughtor main-, 
ned in any. court of law or eqfiity for tecdii|8ring anysuiu of money or valuable 
alleglld ,td'be yit^ upon any wager, or. ^hfj^ 
ands of any person to abide ibe ewn^ ^n.'wili 
mgierprftyMed always as to lawful game^^ ' ^ 



nail; Have' been deposited io 
>ftBy wsger shall Jiftve beei 
»tiai e or el^iaa" A ^ cfiii 



')!'l 






'M 



-f' 



■1 , ■ ■ . ' ' ' i ■' 

COUKT OF (itJEm'S BENeii; i88<J; 



•■«' 



171 



and 
G. I>emen«. 




jSr 






>V 



- w! i ' ;> ^.^"'^'^' '^■' "* ^''« ~«i of Thacker v.. H»rdy, quoted by appeP'' i'-odougaU 

fr«qd had pa,d the amount Ibat b, the betB.#Hdd, that the request tobiTuapl ed 
autbonty to pay the bete i/ lost, ,„d that the friend ^n^^J^l^ 

-.mt!" ^'?r"'?'^'''''^°*P""«'P'J."dhfagen.tthat%i8aKont« 
om^gj^on^^of the principal in betting on hWraee^ dM pay" over the wo 
mm *^^?^h'i- principal, i, not acontractby w^of gn«L|or w '^^^^^^ 
rendered voidb>»ada.V'H>t:, C; 109,8. 18, nor is it illegal .'ireLt'^^^ 

the de^iidant for a commission to make bets for him on horses The def«nrf«„^: 

, '^}^^^^^^^: 7" an action l^ the plaintiff fW the tJ^^^^' 
defcudai^^had,^ received; held that 8 and 9 Wict cl09 « m^lir'v-^ 
null android all eontraCs by way of wa^rin^ did ^l^l^ot l^^^ 
be W.U «. ^^^,^a defendant, and that, ihereibre. WiS^^^t 

, been r. panl to (htf deflndant "-Brid-ier & ^.,a^e, 15 Q. B^ 1)' fe' iT. 
jery recent oas,," the plaintiff, * tuff commissb; agent waB emd;,elbt ' 
.d^n^Mo^betsffrhimin the plaintirs own nS ^T^H^^J^ 
Uff had w m»d3,om, betvbut before he had paid those which were iLt Z • 
de.oml^„t. repuj^ed tl»e4ts, On th^Aetlling day the Plaintiff l^o^*^ " ' 

^»beUfT«tt^rsaIls,paidthedebts,a,:ifheLdUrSe"^e:^ii^ 
-^^avebqco subject to certain disqualjffications itf connection with rac nn^^J^l ' 

paid— )u«»d ttiid Anderson, i;{ Q. Ij. D. 779* 1834 • " "'«'•->« «unc so _ 

Xbcre i»a case of Bcrger v. Adams ('24'l T T ftm A^a a i' *r. % ■ 

■ irj ; ' ^ ^^'^ "^'"^'A ^'"' "«• ^'^^ d«<'"''"»' of the English eoJ to ' 
are of any authohty with , us they :#agafnst the judgment. It has twev^r 

^^Ty^^'^T^'^'^ i*terpreuti0n given by the CourtT'n ^ 
. oFArt. 1965 C K proeeeds on a different principle from the English iurisDrud « 
ence, and th^t there the ag^ . » 

lobe engaged in, cannotreepv^r any more than his principarArtl^fi^^^ ■" " 

l^^words: "I.W .We^ineaction pc^irT^L^^du^^ ^^ • . • 
lStr""^"°r-" '^r^'=«'^-« -»«--o«Je™ French co«A^«^;j ^^V>- 
tyfor us, except as writtenreason, an« it seems tome thatlhedecirioLJllJ:^;^^^ ' 

^ZT^'i ''' --"ff^-^^ -^ tbatlb^brr^^d ^ ^ 

ract W wL?n ^ " '*""**'* ^^ *' ""P"""^*"*' have-confounded the con ' ' 

».tth..o„rt..«„o.rir,.,Mi»,n,in,»,,^.,...,....k.^.,'''^'^^ : 1, 



^4- 



■l! 






I 'IS 






.t .'i 



ts: 



4*., 



f./ 



X 



A 



- . *! 






1»^ 



i> :' 



P 



172 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



H. St Ciair 
■•odougall 
■ ctai. 
and 



. t'- ' ■ I 






V.!; 



t'? 



At tjie second argument on effort was made to controvert the doctrine of 
Pothier by making u distinction between the jea and the jpari, ff'is true 
Polhicr examinees a purely theological question as to games of ohunee^ indopend- 
dently of J;he object of the players: ; C. de jeu No. 3,f but after ooQ^idefing all 
this, ho rejects the Roman laws whidi give the-pitiyor tho right to recovCT back 
what he has lo«t at play, booause they are not in force under the customs, and be 
goes on to say : '^ Nims n'uvons dans ces provinces, de hixciviknaurU jeu, que 
lea ordonnances dejios roi», les arrets ct reglnments de police f aits en execution. 
Ortoutes hslois ce trouvent q condamner les Jciur, a prononcer de grostei . 
amandes centre ceiix qui donnent a jouer, et a denier Faction pour ce jwi a it6 
gagne au/eu; mnis it n'y a aucune de ces loi)i qui donnc auxperdanslorsqu'ils 
sont mafeiirsyli repetition des jsommes qu'ils ontjicrdues an jeu." He then goes 
on to show that the Ord. of Charles IX. exclud<is the action to'rc'ccfver bypcrsong 
of tho age of majority, evea for " des sommes C(jn<>ideruOle8."Ib No. 53.' i^ 
hbrnnlnttkina thixt the C, (le jeu li'est pas nviuoais en luimenie. ■• *^^^ 

Whothorho is right or \vro.ni? in iho ooiioIu.M(iii iie..r»iv.,'#.utyis, 'perhau.i,open 
to qittistie^ ; but it was this view that dictated^^ticlcs 1927 tind 1928 of ottr . 
Code, ^othat it appears iudisputiible that the gambling corttract is not ,null, but 
thtiithe law so far discourages it as tc^rb^use^jicjjauiblejfy right of action. Actio 
etjtis persequnidi in judicio quod sibi rfefec^itr, but; no text of law says that " 
there is an action for evei^thjng that is duo— uotoriouily thera is no^ but qf 
• course this is exce^ional. •^''' ' : 

Perhaps it'may'bc said that the French writers and courts have decided on- ■ 
rul^s as to tlio interpretation of Statutos different from those which guided the 
English courts. Tiiero may "be some slight difference of a superficial kind as to 
intcrprotatiorr of Statutes, but. the rules governing this matter Are everywhere » 
. borrowed from the Roman law, and principally from the title de legibua. Now 
we have thiee Iftws of this title bearihg on this point, the 13, 14, aud.isl The 
first evidently iipplies to general laws. Tho re-ison of this appears by o. 10 of the 
Mme title; because a S^tutc cannot comprise every incidental thiii^, andjhere- 
fore it must be subject to interpretation. C. 11. ' The secbnd.-e. 12, refers to 
. laws which are n'ot in accordance with the reason of law, these are interpreted 
strictly 'and are not carried out*«(rc6»ise^Mm<ta«. While Iho third, c. 16, tells 
us that laws which are exceptiouat and arp introduced for some particular obieci 

are against the tenoi: of the reason of law. Cujas vi. c 182, A. ' '. ^ Jl v[ 

I have heard it whispered " qui vent la Jin veat les moges" as being appTix' , 
cable td this case. In spite of the decision in this court confirmed by the PrivV 
I council in Carter vs.^Molson, this appears to me to be an excellent rule ; but its 
applicability to this^ase I^nnot discover. If^there were a rule o/ this kind: 
Qui vent line fin ve^^if^h mTght, perhaps, aid the respondent's pretepsTbns. . 
I. am inclined to tljiriB that the" writers who haveadopted this enlarge^ vieW of 
interpretation have not sought their inspiration in the civil law, l^t in another 
orxiei' of idea.0, whiejirepqm meads. arbitrary mode;i of arriving at resjjts whieh 
sefeifl" desirable or Convenient for the moment. i "^^ ' 

A recent writer (Hardca^tle, p. 4), has givett a t^T c/kot of Lord Blackburn iO' ^ 



■'^' K : 



&<■ 



I . .;.,,Jl.: 



.'■ 






,^;- 


'1 ■■ 




," 




:.;^'. 


%■ 




*!.^ 




-ft," 


-j^- 


^^^s 


-^^C:- 


ft: 


4 

-Hi, 


* 




.:^'P- 



*,-Vr 



COUET OF QUEIENS BENCH, 1886. 






« r,l ; 



\:: 



173 



other dooumenU,. But tL« i. followed by a somi-aoritraaiotion based on the 
ca«e of Her Majesty^ procurer and Brunoau. ^think, however, that case doea 
not bear out what Mr. Hardoa-tle says. What tho P. C. held wa, that as . 

So n"/^r^^7. r V ^~' ■" '^'^' '"""^ "«"' *»'^'>» »o ^ «de, and that 
,n doing so hey would ook at modem French authoritie? as to the pripor mode 

wntcts^nd decisions for tl,e reason of any difference there might be in the mode 
of interpreting legislation of that peculiar for.9. They did not say that a 
special, law incorporated in aopde should be interpreted w a genera Lw A 
. code compiled on the plan of the C. N. is ^f^in^i^Iy a sum^^^ ^T'oi,^ 
law, and bo much of it as is so must be iriterpreted as an authoriLive genS 
exposition of the common law ; but when & statute is incorporated inloS^ihe 

frd^ffln^fZ,- '^"T "'^^ """ ''''"''y compold of 'statutes. 
The diffcrence^metmes los.rted upon as c«8t«ng between the interpretation 
of statutes in Scotland and in Englapd seems to ^ one .f degrc X tS 
of priuuplc, auJ tLcrcfora it almost escapes tic Ust of oUo L^^^ 

s'stSlaS'^'^^'^^ -^^"^ «"<" --^«^ *« -i^r 

casos in Scotland. If so, ir is not in accordance with the do6trine of Pothier 

on thi. rerj subject nlrcndy mentioned. Tr. de Coottat de Jeu, No 53 A. 
has been already .nidthore is no fundamental, difference botwce^the modet? 
wterpreting s^tutes under the civil law as received in France and under the 
common laj, of England. Domat has treated ihe ^u«.£ion at some Icng^ and 
he does not pretend th^t the Roman law i| not his guide. I think ihavelwn 
conclusively thirt under the Roman kgA soeciy 'rlf r,-«tm„ ^J Vi. ■ 

«.«rf** ki « x"^^ * ♦ . ^"*t *W»^-Pfr"*' '•'striotipn-'Of the common law. 
canrto 6^ exteri^d. . hh no|.:fe«s evTdptfat a statute can only be ex^crtdel 
when it^mnswith tho cominon law, and ^ the tension is to llZ ^'X 

Ihe case of L^douceur and Morasse has been reirredto. T* h.« „„ k- • * 

in«nt Wn- i^iu T . i ■ ' ^^ tl'at'*"? unpaid note was not? paf- 

ment. For bo h reasons I -Ij^enieavored to explain I am to rerarse with »v • 
brother Monk.^lnxt tbo.m,gor|oi the C«,rt is to confirm. ^ ""^ 

,j„i*?''/-~T5l" '' "" ««tion*i,rought ff^ the recovery df th«^ balance of a " ' 

rXwS 7r-! -^--.3 laid out p'nbusdsi::: aij- 

^Jttwdougall Broj., brokers, of Montreal, for Geoige Dem'ei^. a trader of Sf ■ 
^nriProymoe of Quebec. Theamount ilatmed is $1 239 89 if-„S " - 
bears date the 12th June, 1882 ' > " " ,»^'^4».»?. TJie suit 

^refused a remedy.' ° contracts,^f# the reqomy whcrepr the 1»^^ ^ 

He further pleads a defence en /aiV- . ■• *' ' ♦ « V" 



H. StOUr 
Macdooialt 



O: 



and 



^ 



'ft i«» 



. '•if* 



'*•■" «»•. 




* .TV 



#;• 



• -I 



'■■^^ , 






!»" 



./- 






■.\\ 

:■■* 

■•■-#;. 



174 



COURT OF QUREN'S BENCH,, 1896. 



Bouf^ht and told notes, stutementf), amounts and other documents produced 






». St. Cl»>rr. 
Jf ftcdouffttll 'v 

•tau ^'iihow that the parties oommonced their dealings in October, 1881 ; they ^re 



and 
O. Deflierg, 






II-'' 



: 



'\ 



fuw in number, and exclusively 4n stocks, up to the time bf an understanding . 
being come to, resultinp; from the following_porre8poudenoe ; 

On the 28th Deeember, 1881, Dcmcrs writes to Maedougall Bros., making 
this enquiry : " Do you do anything on Chicago exchange on grain, pork, etc., 
in options? If you do anything iu those options please give me your cpnd^ * 
tions and charges of commis8ionB.'''|$ - ■ -- - ** . 

On the 29th December, 1881, Mncdougall Bros, answer. " Deal in Chicago ; 
margin 10 pe^ cent.; commission, wheat ^ per cent, on the $leal flftd lO cents ' 
per tierce &r lard." <^ 

As parlq|[|KJ^e evidence" ihere is pro'dnced, dated ut intervals between the 17th 
. Novembjtr, 1881, and the .Srd' of M;iy, 1882, incluHively, twenty-five sold notes 
and .(wenty-fiye bought notes of stocks ttnd produce negotiated by Maodpugalt „_ 
Brb«. for Demers, the bought notes corresponding gonornliy, #ith the sold notes 
as t(^number of shares and qtilantitieH, the only difference b^ing in the^ice,.,so 
that in general each purchase could he set off aj^ainst a corresponding sal«, tli« 
.one balancing the other as to ftuq^bov or quantity — differing only as to price. 
" T&ere is,l)esides, a bought note for one single transaction in October, vis., for 
thfi purclMise of fifty shar$!8 Montrenl Telegraph stock. • ; , 

There are also produced seven statenieats showing seven purchases And sevoil. 
sales of the same. subjects, whether of stock or of produce, showing eacji sale set ' ^. 
off t^inst a correspondihg. purchase, a balance of profit or loss being struck in, *■ 
'"'each case of such double transaotiqh aa^o transacted, uN occurring between tb»-' [ 

9jth bf February and th|B3T4oMyiay, 1882. j - 

" Also accounts currehVslrawing the, tt;an8actis|ns iirtlie same light. 

The bou^t and ^sold notes and other vouchers web all made as showing 
trahsootious directly betwien MaedQUgall Bros and D*euiers. '^ * -^ < 

There 19, besides, jputpf" record the following correspondence: On tb»<22afl 
of April, 1882, 1)em$rs^writes a letter to Mucdougall Bros., from which I make 
the following ext;i^;j^''^ (beg to say that I will remit Monday, and that every- 
; thing will be setilfedlionoraibly. Corn I intend to hold^sold." fcin the 26th * 
"April, 1882, Diokieis' remits |1,000, which is acknowledged by Macdougall Biros. 
': oti. the 27th in aletter in which they besides say : ''^e shall be happy to bUf 
more. Western Union, bpt we are not in the jM^k,of biiying stocks foryMtyoali^ 
without a margin, and yoii must therefore plefK^n^. We Carried yo^r sto«bl ^ 
a&d grain whetf most other bouses would have closed out the account, and evea -'' 
now we have no margin on your corn, and do notAef like taking any fii^her, . 
risk, as you appear to' have no confidence in our fina^iaf standing." 

On the Sad of May, 1882, Macdougall Bros, -telegrad^d to Demcrs' " Ghi«l|||f' 
agent wants remittanpe. Will you send it or close d&F." \' 

On tiie same day, 2nd of May, Macdeugadl Bros telegraph to Godde?, th(i|r' 
Chicago agent, " Cover com, if you think adtfissfble.' /, 

•^ On the following day, '3rd of May, M^tedbugall Bros, write to Hemtm 9^" 
follows : '" Not having seen or heard frotu you, we co<f«red. yopi: cwn to-day aad^; 



^y • ' 






n ' 




», ■ . ■ 


,;.■■• . ' " , 




.'■'. . 


_s 


.■ h 


■■■-7' 












;»• 


' % 








jk 


Ja 


K^ 



y 



-^ 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII-1886. 

ill' ;V', . ■ -i.. . , - ' 



■- I 



175 



;H. St. Clalp- 
UacdougaU 



advi«od y^hy wire. We will send 8t«teu,ont ia a du, or t.«f," and <y, thetn.e :«' ^t 
date 3rd of ,Al«y, they .a„d Be.erB a bought note VCir own ^^e.' uh a "tt '-. 
„ P»"ha8e on Deme«aooountof40,000 bushel* July cofii. ThU bought nk« is 'oSle*: 

xjne of a series produced by Dcu.er8 on his cxamiu.tion as a witnes" for Mic-' ** 

dougallBros. On it there appears written by hiu,, "N«t authorized." This 

corresponds witfr the position taken by him iq his letter of^ the 22nd April, and 

W his ewdenoe (see p. 8, I. 4 Appets. appendiSrr 

* ^"/"''.^'^"^ ^'"y Maodougall Bros, enclosed their account to Dcniers, 

flliMming the balance of$l,2S9.99 now sued for. ' . 

,»^fi.K*'^il*if f"^'^*'"''*''"*^'^" *•»?•" "«^°"«''8= '* In reply to yours of ^^ 
the 8th and 16th, 1 regret to s«y t^aU eai^not give you iny Jney awny. I 
begto^r you to „.y letter ofU^e^id^oUpril ; bad yi>u teld corn subject 
to my order you would have b^pald sani^a, NeW York stocks ;■ should you "- 

^^•' ^ «"> P'-f'^^d ta a.eet:you. I have my ia|,rmatio. takaa^. _^ ^ 1 

Thj-ee letterti of Alexander- Geddes, of Chio«go;'are produce^ addressed to • 

Matdougall Bro8.,^dated respectively the 13th and 16th of April and the 12th 
of Way. That of the Kth of April acknowledges', remittance of $2,000'tf 
H^iris advises the purchase of 10,000 bushels ^uly corn, quotes July corp at 
70a and anticipates loyer prices. That of the 16th of April still predicts a 
mbtionforlowerpr.ee.. Tlmt of May 12th quot^ ' ^ ' 

™j4 *^' W'- . • ' ' ' 

I m^eso&e quotations from the qfal testimony. , Mr. Meredith, the chief 
fllerk of Af«cdougall Bros., when asked what thebalance sued' fpr consists of 
answers, it is the losses on the Chicago iransactions, less the profits made oa'^ 
other transactions. Appellants factum, p. 2|, 1, 14. Q. Did the piainti; 
actually pay these losses to the agent in Chicago? "A. Yes. L. 17 •Q Were 
yo« authorized tA buy these 40,000 bushels of corn by the defendant Demers ? 
A. We notified him to cover, ^hat is to buy^or we would close out. He did 
BOt put up the margin, and we therefore closed out the account P 2'> 1 27 
There was a debit against hip, (the defendant) of about $l,Q00r P. 22 1* lo'" 
' Q- "hat wj>8 the result of these transartiona? '■ 

A. A loss of $1,737.50. P. 20, L 6. • * 

Q.' AlHhe8otransactix,ii8;eri to be settled by the difibrences .between the 
.pnceofthebuyiDgandthepriceofselling? , - ' ;' 

. A. I^; he could hive delivered if he washed. P 23 129 - • 

Afr.^d.ile, brolccr, at p. 24, 1JJ3: The Chioago-cJrr^spondentof alSfOHt- 
-ttri^ Broker always looks to the Montreal broker to see that margins are kept„up 
and I knowmmy case they^wouldhold o.^ personally responsil^le .if mafgWaS 
not kept up, p. 25, 1 3. If the 6rm ofvtrok,r,,or cori^sponaeHts ^t Ibicago' 
wires that margins are^expiriflg, anj we "do W forwafdiliiore margios,4fa:y 
^.^they are at kbertyto closeout t^pptioti, ^^Ja^^Io^ «r shirt, asti^ 
.ease ma, be.^and hold the^ntfeal bVoter jehon.lly rcsponsJbte^rltlH^ioss' 



t II 



li 



♦ s; 









r^— 



.• J. 



<k. 






' '- ' " . " ,. J* ■ 



\ ' i r m 



* o • 

• 9 



•> 



■A. 



•/■■■;'.■: 



;" ■ "-i^M. 




COURT OF QUEEN'S B^NCH, 1886. 



./^ 






. \ 



If 



,1 



"^ 



*1L^ ^'^'I'r I>«meM HtateJ in his evidence, p. 14, 1. 0, I rceeifed" the letter of the 2'7th 

et Bl?* " April,but hftd not tho BtatcmcDl tlicn and did not make any further remittiincea. I 

<k Deuerf ^*^ received ^statement from them before «tiiting ?Hflt I hod no margin with 

them when I had,: I think, OTer $2,000. They had Vodo o miitake in the 

* ' ttatement, and I aontthe crtatcnKnt to them to be corrceted, and^Jli^ corrected 

it for me. ' .^ 

w f, tt is worthyof 'observatlc^n that the negotiations for the businesa in question 

' took place between MacBougall Bros, and Bcmers without the later having had. 
tny communication with the Chicnpo ngenl, or ever having given any authority 
to employ an agent in Chicago, save that the circumstances and tho nature of 
the businesa might imply that such an agent ^^Id be necessary ; yet if an agent 
only, and, not a correspondent or firm of brdfcerp, as mentioned by Mr. Esdaile, 

, were employed, bis acts %t Chieaso would still be the actaj)f Macdougall Bros., 
by their agent there, so that the dealings, and oonti|i|^, in this case must be 
)qoked upon as transacted between HucDougall Brc^. ana Demers. 
' aNo delivery 8eQmi> elver to have tnken place in execution of any of the sales or 
purcbasel, with the expeption perhaps of th^; first transaotion — the purchase of 
telegraph BtockJn-Octgbnr — about which I biivc not been able to make out 9 

"^ certdinty. Nor does it seem that any delivery was ever asked for, nor I should 

' Bay inftended.. Tbe sales generally preoedcd the purchases which in each ease 
seem Jo have been„8et off ogainst -them, and when Meredith is asked about tho 
purpose to settle by differences ho <?ivfis an equivocal answer to the effect that' 
Bemers could have delivered if he wished, evidently implying in the terms of the 
understanding thnt the contract allowed him the option of cancelling by differ- 
ences. No tiroe'or place for delivery was nientionod in the bought or sold notes but 
Jiily corn must have meant corn dolivorable in Jnly. They were dated at Mont- 

. real and in ordinary course would call for delivery there. 

. The particular trnn^jstction which comes in at tho clone dt the account to turn " 
the b:»l!»nce iigainst Demers: was as follows : — Dcmei's was at the time sellcr,through 
Macdun<!all Brop^jOf four piirccls of July corn of 10,000 bushels eacli,in all 40,000 
bushelii, on which tlicy considered they hsid not sufficient margin. They conse- 
qae(rtly,oii the 2nd M!iy,tcleeraphed to Demers to'furnish more mar^n, and on the 
sane "day teleirraphcd to Geddcs, Cheir'Cliicago agcnt,^to buy corn for a cover or 

* Bet off to protect them against the sulp.<i. They dci»andcd no specifio amount, and 

.allowed Demers no delay tirfurnislit^ additional margin ; they must even then have 
bait sonic niarjfin if reckoned on the price :it which the corn had been !>old, bee<(usc 

nhcyiAy purchases, e|fccted to bal^incc Demers' sjiles, show a loss of $1,737.50, 

.whilst the b^ilancc clnifnnql on the wfiole account is only $l,230.,9d, and as they 
£eem to have consciuteU to hold over after the salef, it is to be pref^umed that for 

^jMie time, and ujatil corn began tq rise in prie<'. they were satisfied with their 
Margin. |,Unlcss satisfied at that time they would not have consented to hold 
over as tliey did. That motgin depended on tiie gcacrul state oraccounts at that 
time between them and Demers, ot which no Ht^Uemunt has been furnished. 
They could hot aibttraVily defeat Demers' ri^iit ttrithout i4ir>wing that they were 
entitled to !aouit"'»peoific amonnt'Of mari^in and aliawiog him a reasonable oppor- 



>vP 



CJ 




,v.;V 






COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 188C. 



1^7 



A I T'^ "• '^^'^ telegraphed D^mors oa the 2Dd of May making an ' 
indeflnite demand or uiargm, and on the same day telegrnphed their Chicago- 
ligpnt to cover. These two actH appear to have befen .simuhaneous, and on thtf 
3rdof May they furniBhed Domer. with a Bought note in their owh names, 
dated at Montreal, for 40,000 bushels xjfcor^ to replace the corn o«iy deliverable 
in July. j^ 

On these iBsiios and facts, and the evidence so adduced, the Superior Court 

was of opinion Ithat the balaflce so sued for was claimed under gaming contracts. 

Md dismissed ^hc action. do, 

The appeal bow under considcriition has been" ^en from this judgment. It 

brings up for ojonsideration two main qaestinns : 

First, whether the balance sued far, ifdue, accrued in virtue of one or mora ' 
gaming contracts for which the law dctfies a remedy ; and, 

Secondly, whether Maodougall Bros, were justified in 'their purdiase of the 
40,000^bu»hels of corn for account and risk oPPomers, and thus at his risk and 
chirges to adj iist a deficiency occurring from fluctsation of the market 

On the first question I would remark that time bargains sueh as ii^ in 
questiSfi m this case arc not necessarily illegal, nor does the law refuse timforce 
themif they are made for serious transactions intended to be fulfil!edra1th6uih~ 
It might fall out contrary to the expeotntion of the parties that they were -dot 
really carried out as contemplated but came from unseen causes to be settled by 
differences. But if in contemplation bf^ths parties they were at their inception ' 
intended to be speculative transactions to be' settled by adjustment of prices 
according to the rise or fall of the market, in such case, { think^h^Maw would 
Mdthem tp be gambling transactions. " It is, of course, argued that nothing ' 
appears on the face of the docunients themselves which ^he law disapproves of 
and it should not be presumed^at they are different froii, what they purport to 
be, unless it were so proved as a fact, «nd this is corrrct, but it may be so prwed 
«Dd the appreciation of the proof to show that they are made for a purpose differ- 
ent fjom what they purport to be is the sovereign attribute of the tribunal that 
weighs the evidence. Now, the judge of the Superior court Us found that the 
contracts in question were really gambling transactions, anJl do not feel war- 
ranted in owr-raling his oginion. It has been universally re^p^iiMd that trans- 
actions effected by time bargains not intended to be executed by delivery of the 
subjects bought or sold, must be corisidered gambling transactibns. I a-'ree with 
the judge of the Court below in the inference he has drawn from the evrdence in 
this case, that the surrounding cireumstances lead to the conclusion that the con- 
tracts upon which appellant's claim is based wer« in their nature gambling con- 
trwts. The understanding sliadowed forth m the correspondence was for options 
which in the course of dealing was never exeroiwsd nor apparently intended to be 
exercised, save by setting off sales against purchases, mivicisveria. The whole - 
^ourse of dealing from the coameneement to the conclusion of the account was 
ftttt a repetition of tbis process. The indefinite terms of the contracts as to the 
•^me and place of delivery and payment shewed a disregard oresscntial details 
-of real traasaetions. No deliveries bMog ever t«ndei«d or called for, tuargins 



H. St. qiidr 
Maodounll 

ataC . 

•ad 
O. Oemaia 



/ 



*•;;#- 



_5 ' - % 



ft » 



i '•■_-"• ^ y ,' -' • v-/' .'"v 



•I 



\ 



. p 



n 



^ti-%rrw"- "■;';.*- 



178 



/ 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, Um. 



B. Bt. Clair 
Macdougitll 

etsl. 

•nd. 
G. Demvri). 



. " ° '*% 



beio}? tho only cxcoutioiis of the ooutraots eTJBr souplit Air other than adjust- 
mcnts setting off purchwieH against iwIom, thuii settling diff«ronoe»i ; in broltera' 
language, closing the deal, and Maodougall BJ-os.' own apent at (Jhioago nevv 
calling for the eorrying out of the transactions, ibut merely asking fo^ margin, are 
BO many oircuu)f*tanoeH jridiouting the true na|turo of the dealingfi between thp 
psrticK, added to which there is the extreme |im|probability •of a imall country 
dealer such os Dcmers having or being able ito oontrol eitRcr at Cljicigo or 
Montreal such an amount as 40,000 bushels ^f oOrn at anyone timej besides 
other considerable values; also, tho present suit itself Jjciliig brought to recover 
differences occurring' on tho close of the July c6rn deal, even btfore the month 
or July had arrived. I ,i ^---'-^ 

But, it may be asked, how could the contrnist as between Macio^gall !<ro»., 
and Domerftbo a gaming contract as rogardi Mjaodoagall Bros., *hp were only 
to. earn their commission on the transafition. } A wager implied a lutbility to 
lose and a chance of gain, but the brokers in this respeot stood neutrgil. The 
answer here is that tl>e brokers disclosed no prirlcipal ; they admittftd that they 
bound themselves, and ^^vgono Chicago agent {was mentioned until the 3nd 
May, a con!4iderable time ^tei^lhe sales, andtheh only an agent; no purahaser 
was ever disclosed, and, as lor as Deuiers was (ionoerued, none'tnuy have cv*r 
existed; .seemingly, t,hercfore^^o all intents and jpurposcs, Demers waefprinoipai 
on one side and Macdougall Bfps. were principals on the ,^t)the]jf8tae, and took 
th^risk of the gambling and .settUHgby difforencles. If aorn had fallen so as to 
preset the opportunity of making a large profit a broker's 'operation through 
Macdougall Bros., would have been all thilfr wai necessary to have procured ii ' 
set offhand tliey would have been called upon to pjroduce tho profit, •■ Had it been - 
a purchawj they made for Bomers in place of a sAle, aud corn had risen in price, 
they would have been the ouly party whom Peibers would have„oailed upon to 
make good the profit. No principal wt^ld have been appareflt. It is therefore 
between these two parties .as princip.ilsHhat the ii|at«re of the contract must be 
ju'dged of ad Well as its can.aequences. For iiH thit appears to the contrary the 
Bale of corn may have been to MJ^dougall Bros, jtheinsc'lves, and pnictically it 
was 80, as thc7 were the parties who took the risk jas regards Demers ; their act- 
ing for margin for their Qhictgo aijent was nothing different, to asking the 
guarantee to be put ipto t|ie hands of a clerk in thpir flffica. It ia quite possi- 
ble, and feFcn probable, th.iit Macdougall Bios., throiWh their agent at Chicago or ., 
onicrii«8e, may have liiidft sales and fiuichMes for Dehiehi, as they olsim to. have 
<^one^and «h it there w<^ro such traiL^actions with reaiyurchssers and real .sellers 
that there was njqre thah a i(Wi>e communication of Writitjrgs by them to Dem^s ; 
but, if so, ,th(>y ha'e failed to Jhtke proof of such transactions and have them- 
selves jto blame -for 1iot.doing so. It is not shown that thef made any contracts 
iwr J^ifp^s with jobbery oatside of any collateral contract whatever for him; but« 
if'^j%tV,thfe Chicago apfitinade" slich a contract, which does not appear, it must 
faave^|$|<m''m^ 5f the snme'.gambUng natare because hi, too, only oalled for 
margin %}e^o| for qlelivery. . ^ ,, ? 

R^turniiig*'fiow tp the Ipecial-transaction respecting whiQh tho deBclency is^ 




' /;■' 



v.- 



■■■■P:' 






COURT OF„QtTBfeN'S;MNGtt, tm. 



m 






claimed, the wieby Danrtn of ihe 4(»,0OO bu«li«}*,of Wo to Bo delivered in n 8i. OWp 

July. The l«U)2l^«8niog^t|e „o(mrpwt WM thiVl)eii«ir« •hould doliwr ***W^ 

40,oeO busholif ymv in July, arit] ug no principal, was diHcle««d and Mao- 

dougall BroH. ItolcrminseWcB twrsoa»liy retpon«ibl«, D<?tticrB would look to them 

for payment an Well an. the reoepttou of the corn.- The real meaning of the 

parties Hcems to^ve been that a »pooili«ive ialeor-lajnucJi corn should b« 

mttdA by Oeroern in hi>M8of » ri«e in the market and aooording to him it »houW 

fcniuin sold until an oppo^t^«ify occurred of ^overinK it by a purchase at » 

lower fij-ure, und aooordihg^ Mucdougall Bros., .until their holding it boW ' 

entailed on them too great a>i«k of liability in a rising market, deeming tb»t 

they had not sufficient margin in hnntt to (tecurc them from the chances of loss, 

Ntiithor party oontodtSpluted a real trunnaotion, which was probably this reason of^ ; 

tlje expression by Dcmcrs in his letter of tho 17tb May, "Should you wish to 

go-further I am prepared to meet you." „ : ■„'-■■• ,: '- ,, v. 

As regards tlie luw^upplicable to the ease by articit 1,927 GWl eodfti tfesw Ir 
no right of action for the recovery of money or any other thing claimed und«r. 
a gaming contract or a bet; but if the money or thing have betjn paid by tljo ' 
losing party he cannot recover, it back unlesi fraud be.proved. '' i< 

The like provisions are made by articles 1,965 and 1,9G7 of tfco Code ., 
Napoleon; the decisions and. writers in France under thcse» a^ticlcii are of 
absistanoo in the eoiistruction of our oWn. ^ • - 

It has been argued that although the party to Ihe gaming contract Sannot 
himself recover jiuder such contract, yet be may aHthoviw an agent to make » 
gaming cotttrnctior him, ai^d tl^at agMtmiiy recover from his prinobiJ what he 
ptiys for liis principal under such gaming contract, and numerous'^EJnglish qnpes 
have been cited arising under a law similar to our own, which go far to sustain ■ 
this proposition. It is cdinteHded that a||be bali^noe claimed in Ma suit is for 
monies j)aid by Maodougall Brothers f^&mers in executing bis.instructiohfl 
they have a i;ight to reoover the amoun^ thfre being no illegality or prohibition 
in law of the gaming contract, but only a denial of the right of action on the 
gaming contract. Among other Authorities the decision in the cose of MoShane • 
vs. Jordan is. oite4 in support of this view, but tlie French authorities, both 
under the old and the modern law,,having provisions similar to our own, take a 
different ''view of tho matter, and the case of MqShane and Jordan was not a 
parallel of the present. The question was whether the stakeholder could refusa -, 
to pay over the stakes to the' winner, or, rather, having paid over the money in i 
his hadds the ftmount of the bet to the winner, the depositor, the loser of the 
bet, could recover from llie stakeholder the amount of his deposit, notwith- 
standing a payment of it having been mM^' the wifiner. Troplorig, Mandat. 
No. 30-31. ■ ' . , , ^ . 

It has been held generally in the English cases unller i«c. T8 of the Statute 8 
and 9 ^ic, caV 109, that an agent employed tojmako a gaming contract may 
do so pursuant to his instructions, and in the event" of loss may pay theXlQss and 



#1 



recover the amount together w^jH^i^mmissions frpm^Ws pAieipnl, also that 



instructions'^ to bet imply an a^BMf to pay the>t''if lost, although made in 



-r 



-rr 






'./' 







l'» 



tk^. 



' 



V 



H-fStClftlr 
Jfaodonffall 



«0MI^. 




W" 



COURT OF QUEBNS BENCH, 1886. 






^ iom« irreV9«ablo if, bj refuui to JfeLtlio affent ia aubjeoUi(i to 
••rioM inoonv«<ii«no« and lew* in hi«pPCu«tn«M. v. ' 

i.sli«h StatuCo ia mora atriiigent thta onr Code. It rcad< lU foilowa : 
aU oragreomenta, whether by parol or w writing, by way orgamblinj? 
or wagering, ahall bo null android, and no auit ahull be brought or uiniDtainod 
. lo any court of law of equity for reooyoring any auw of money or Tuluablo thing^ 
illegod to bt won upon any wagor. ' ,, . . - ; „ *p 

In Oeger va. Adataa, Vice-Cliance|lor Stuart held th« winner of' i bet not 
entitled to reoowr from the holder of the.atakca. TUu oa*), UowoTW, U Dp 
longer authority, havihg been ainoe toverrulod. x ^ 

In Cooper va. Noil. Sbe Wtekti, lieportfr for 1878-W, tol. 27, p 169 the 
Maater of the Roija Bro^ nJinarked that the true eonatruction of the Statute 
waa that it aflFcoted only the contract that made the bit. That in that caae three 
oontracta had been auggeated; one waa that the defendant came to an eiprdT" 
„«greemeirt that the broker ahould enter into traoaafltionaorthe Stock Eichange 
which might end either in tfain or losa, but that whatever happened to the 



broker he would only claim differenoea fromor pay differencea toTho dTfenlait 

he broker could not aue for the differenoea, 




In that case he waa inclined to think the „.u««r cpu.a not aue tor tlie ditTcrcnoea 
because It woufd bo a gambling transaction. The accond wa«, if the brokei 
only mttde time bargains on which ho could not bo legally held lllible, and had 
•not paid he could not recover againM hia principal. The third aupposod caae 
*|o dcJcndant Jiad employed the plaintiff to make time bargains with the 
» on which he the plaintiff would be person.^ly liable ; he wojild, in that 
liable to his broker to make good such time biirc?nins 

TmH . ' "i ^."^^' ^^- * ^- ^ ^'F' ^^5. By Mr. Justice Lindloy :^ 
THP15,oker was held entitled to recover froli his prinoip.,1, although he know as 
totween theta that the transactions were to be of a gambling character, knowing ' 
at- the same time that the broker would require to-bind himself personally for 
contracts which he made with third parties by the instruction* of his principal 
The broker was entitled to be indemnified by his principal for ifce consequences' 
ot oontfac^, on which he was personally bound to third parties, although, .a 
.between himself and his principal, it was perfectly understood they were 4n the 
nature of gambling tri^actions. , " 

Read vs. Anderson, i:.:R. 10 Q. B. D., j,. lOO. A case tried JjeforeMr. Justice 
Hawkins, without a jury. * •"•j^o 

«^T^?*'''nf'*^ T' " °'""'"''^'*'° "««" «>' ^''''ing racing bets, and a member 
of rattersall » subscription room. He was instructed by the defendant to take 
..bats^nhoi^ racing; the bets were lost, and he paid the winners. He brought " 

.!LZr'T''''^i?^^^^^^^ '«'«'«' ♦»'« »«^'«''<« <J»e Inm for such 
payment. Th.^ defence ^?S^?lnitnh«^debt,JH,in£rone which accrued Under a . 

gumiog contrict, could not be recovered. ~^"-'— — -^' 

It was held that bets wore' not illegal ; consequenUy, they might^brpaM""" '"' 
voluntarily at the option of the loser^ough the law denied the wiLr 
authority to tenforc^ ti.em ; that an autharity to bet implied an authority to pay 



■^■^i-: 



B' 't^'$^. 






* 



•■■" 




UKT Ol- QURfN'S kwOH.WM," 




I ^ 



If Iho bet w«. b,!. Thk unphod authority might bo foUod fwa upngo or l!r«ia H it. Otdf 
he „at«ro of th« d«.1,nR. b«tw«,n tte panle.. flo foo«4, »;i|%l. «|»t when ^t^H^ 
the def«..daBt ga^e ,„ wtfiority to ),«t ho gave »n l»nptt«| sttthrirfiy »<, p^y ,i„ Vi 



CMC of loM. Abio, that tho duiond*n 
only dORJrod to nlie th^ q 
held that if « p«raon amptoya 
an authority to puy the bcti 
although before the bat ii mudo 
bio, the moment the authority ia fi 
to pay it, if lout, becomes irrevocal 
by thb priaoipHl'M authority makea tho 
ally reiponaiblo for thenii 




voko tho ftulhority to pay; k« 

w"r«t, hooiwtly iaait4 ini 

<*t(S l»gent,'» owa atumo, 

tho e»npliiyment,„an(l' 

ilivrit;j[. j»ro both rovooR* 

of tlto bet tH« authority 

ijyi to oowa where the aj^at 

« *»«W, fft « If bo perwm. 



0.1) 



3p 



-:• • 



y 



(»+ 






^ In Appeal. L. R, vol 13 Q. B. 0., p. 779, it wa.,Wdil»at tlir»i»p|oy«enl 
of an aRont to make a bet i^ hU own namb oo boMf of hinf rIociH may imply > 
au aothor.ty to pay the bet if lost, aud Oo »«MBgof the bet th.t !»itHority may 
bccowo irrevocable. . ^ * ^ -Ms "-jr uinjr 

The plai.,tijf;acninmi«io^>icni/m.doo^ wbidh wa. 

lo»t. llo paid the bot; hi« failure to'do bo would have^m^e hi™ a defaulter 
and worae off tfaan .f he^Wero.e,po«»d to an action. It ^iUd have beo„ ruin ti 
him. He would haVo bqprt. liable tp the wiuwr by Itb^ ruloa of thi turf and 
subject to expulsion from Tattersall'H. Bowo« and Fry, justieea. ooncurred la 
affirming Uawk.ns' judgment; Mr. Juatico Brett dlsieni^^v The two former 
JUH.COS bold that there iraH an tmplied authority for tho agent to indemnify 
himselfirom the consoquenee., thai wouldbavo, rMted to Mm h<,d he refused 
to pay the bet j that ho bad plaeed himself in a position of pecuniary difficulty 
at defendant 8 request, ,rho" impliedly contracted to indemnify him fVom tho 
coDsequCBces which wqoW emuo in the Ofd^^ar/ coiWe of his burincss from tho 
8t.p which he had token ; he would have been li|ble to ^ turned out of tho 
membership of the Tattersall'a room, Jibgro he did his bu«ine»s on which hi. 
. living depended. Brett, the Master ofA^»oUs, diaseirted. holding that if ^ 
principal eknploya an agent to perforni an act, and if, upon revocation of the 
authonty, the agent will bo by law exposed to loss or suffering th* authoritv 
cartnot be revoked. But fa the o«» under consideration no claim could 
''"^ lf\^*f""7 ^-f""**** "g^i-s* th« ag^nt. True, the betting obntraot 
was m«e by the plaintiff in hi. own name o^alf of hjs prinoipal, nev^rthe- 
. «t«<i»ld not^ enforced againat/him. Inhe\he^ party to the bet had lost 
. and,had decfined,to^ he could n/ot have been compelled to do so. But it had 
been contended thatWhough thia/view bo true, the law puts it into tho power 
of the plaintiff to enforce paymc/it by the defendant of the amoont of thVbet 
because if not paid the plaintiff 4il| suffer a loss in his business, but the plain-' 
-fiffs business, although it may nWTbe lllegal>. directly objected to by the law 
Jndthe cont«cte.^ade^^h^ ig-his busine. cannot bo enforced. It is L 
btfsinesspf which the law ouglit not to4«kijjflti^j»bd. therefore, tho inconw- 
mcnceahd loss which the pJaiB/tiff might suffer in his obj^troffaMo^bu»ing,t.fi,Tm 
ao ground to hol d irreVoc abl£ an M thor^^^^^^ not t o hnvo ~ 



/ 



• c 




IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 

















A 



i/.. 



i/.. 



^ 



<$> 



\» 






' y.-^ * 



^■••" "^ 



\.«, 




1.0 



i.r f^i 



•*« lis 12.2 



SB.I 



20 



IIJI i U ii.6 



■i:) 



■ r ./-Til* 







Sciences 
Carporaaon 



'A 



Zi 







/ 






.¥•■ 



'■i^ .', 



;\ 



"^. 



\. 



/ 



■7^. 




COURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 1886. 



i. ' 



1. St. ClAlr 
■cdourall 

a_ 
0. De 



given. The oases in which an authority cannot be revoked ought to be con- 
fined to those in which the agent will, upon revocation, suffer what the law 
deems to be an injury. For these reasons he was of opinion, that Mr. Justice 
Hawkins' judgment was wrong. 

However great the respect which should be conceded to the majority in this 
caa^I think it will be admitted that the reasoning of the dissenting judge is 
veryX^trong; it is, moreover, in accord, with the French authorities, and 
Js^eciaHy with, the view by tjj,em taken that what a principal cannot Jawfully do 
him^^f h\oannot legally authorize an agent to do for him. The language held 
by Mr. Justj^^ ^torey in his work on Agency, sec. 339, might, I think, have 
some application hrfe : " There can be no reimbursement or contribuUon among 
wrong doers, Whether principals or agents." Although the decision in Reed vi. 
Anderson the points involved do not even seem to have been subjected to the 
test of the highes^tribunal, and far as it^oes it does not seem to me to go the 
length of ruling tl^e present case. Demers gave no authority to employ an 
agent in Chicago, he had no contract with that agent, the contracts he made 
were with Macdougall Brothers, and in their name-down to the last disputpcl 
one of the purchase of the 40,000 b'ushels of July corn, whereof the bought note 
18 produced, their authority ever to have made this contract was denied from 
the first, they were in fact forbidden to make if. Demers' position is consequently 
•tronger than if th^ authority had existed and had been revoked before the 
broker had paid a ^ability whio^ he had incurred for his principal, and no case 
has been cited goi^iig so far as to hold that a brcker whoso authority hid been* 
I revoked after he h^d made a gaming contract for Ins principal and before he had 
« fulfilled it, could persist ii fulfilling it against the will of his principal, and 
maintain an a<;tion for indemnity against the principal unless his refusal to pay 
would subject himl to pecuniary loss or serious inconvenience beyond the mere 
. inconvenience^«)f b^ing sued by his agent on a contract that iould not be enforced. " 
I take it that according to oui system if there was a liability incurred by Mac 
dougall Bros, for DjemersjIJemers would be liable to answer to their suit as being 
their garantj and ifkhere was no liabilityHhere would bo no need of such recourse.' 
There is a later citse of Bridger vs. Savage, L.R.Q.B.D., September, 1885, p 
383. / 

On th«v^econd question, viz.: Whether Macdougall Bros, were jugtifted in 
their purchase of 40 000 bushels of July corn. 

As a general rulep transaction made for another withouf authority would4)e 
a nullit^. It is, W)wevcr, permitted to one person to act as the negotiorum 
gestor of another, to do for him a useful business to his profit or advantage. It 
is argued that the purchase in question was in' the interest of Demers, and that 
it was jjustifiable by the usage of brokers and ^ the circumstances of ti)e case. 
It is noit sliown that it was in Demers' interest h^ontemplated the value of com in 
in the lionth of July, at whiph tlu^ he conceived he could fulfil his sales at a 
lo^ price and have a profit on ttiom. The corn to close the deal was bought 3rd 
of May|at a high price, after which time it is proved that it fell oflTin price, biit ' 
^t does hot appear what it could have been got for in July. It was purchased 




COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 188C. 



183 



on the theory that DemerB had not the corn and was unable or unwilling to ftil8l 
hts contracts, aajfcsuit was brought on the 12th June, 1882, on a olaim founded 
on the close of the deal in May, before the, intended speculation had ripened into 
performance. It is, therefore, Hot shown th'at the deal was closed in Demors 
interest. , ,, ^ 

As to i^ being according to the ^stom of the brokers, as spoken to by Mr. 
Esdaile, '.' to close out the option whether long jor short as the case may be." 
This may very well be a custom sought to be established by the brokers, much 
in their ov^n interest: it does not follow that it is warranted by law; on the 
contrary,^t at once defeatsjih* fulfflment of the contract in the sense in whteh 
itpurp^ tobave been mWyQ^hHroducesthegambling element by a balancing 
by a difference m, price. We pretence for doing this is a supposed default to 
fulfil a contract and a legitimate |K)wer conferred by that default. A re-sale of 
asu^ect purchased fo/ default of payment is more readily understood than a 
purqhase to protect from the consequences of a sale, because the seller is supposed 
to possess or to be-able to procure Within the reijuired time the property >fr has 
Bold. The pretence, bo doubt, is that it was part of the contract that a^argin 
of 10 per <^nt-8hould bo advanced at the initiation of the transaction; but it 
should be kept up to that figure, if required by the fluctuutiona of ibe market 
1 don't think.this is proved; but, suppose it were, what are'the legal consequences 
of failing to do so in the case of sales ? In the first place, the broker should 
certainly state specifically the amount required, and I should say give notice of 
when It IS required, but in case this does not bring the money,%hat are the legal 
consequences? Not an unauthorized purchase of a like amount. The ^le' 
must have been made either with the mtentio^ of a delivery or it was a sale^'ob* 
closed by a deal. The first proposition wotiW imply an obligation to deliver but 
only when the contract matured-the last a Speculative transaction, to be settled 
by^difference. The first, only, is the one the legal oonseguences of which require 
to be considered. In an ordinary sale for ftft&re AsH^ery the seller only mjkes 
himself liable for damages for non-delivery 4^*™* Promised. If begets the 
broker to contract for him in his (tho broji|g own name, and adds the subsiv 
diary contract of undertaking to indemnflpitti from chances of^iability in oase 
of a change in the value of the article dealt in, the consequences of failing to 
keep up a margin may authorise the broker to expend money to protect the 
interests of his principal by himself paying for and furnisWng to the purchaser 
the article sold when the time arrives for the maturity of thdWain but it can- 
not authorize a purchase by anticipation to interrupt the opeitio^ ihe contract 
and defeat the vendor's expeototion of a profit it the tioTe he has calculi^ted op 
•If the contract had matured the broker would liave a n/rfeot right to protect him- 
self by purchasing for his own protection. If it/faad npf inatured, he might still do ^ 
80 at hisown risk, and if the seHer failed to pwduce theartiole sold when the time 
*for delivery arrived apply his purchase in liquidation of the sale fot which he was 
hound ; or if he liquidated and, closed th/deal by anUcipation, he could show 
that the operation had proved fc be in/the interest or for the benefit of the 
«ller. It is^quite true that if his bar^iin had been for a mai^in, to Im» kept up 



Q.St.01aIr 
MscdoDgall 

etaL 

and 
Q. Dfunerf. 



11 



i|i 



in,. 



» 



J> 



■*'?6'i-*>^- 



V ».•,--- 



184 



■%^ 



COURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 1886. 



■•V 



Jllicdo?iS ***! '"»»'«^*«* 0"cc. on the failure of such margin, take whatever steps the law 
M J. might allow him to claim that margin, or perhaps demand security, but he ooald 

O.I>emerj. "*'*' <•" '^'S'*' principles, do an unauthorised act at the risk of his principal, such 
as buying by autioipatioD to cover.* possible future loss. 

This view is corroborated by the authority of a book cited at the argument 
by the counsel for the appellants, vij., Mollot Bouri-es de Commerce. As to 
allowing re-sales or purohasef as a sot off it wou'ld appear from the numbers 
cited, 182 and 183, to favor the appellant's pretensions, but tj reference to the 
conclusion of No. 181 it would appear'that the remarks in Nos. 183 and lj83 
apply exclusively to "^larches au comptant." Again No. 184 is in the saine 

• sense. 

' Hq, however, cites an'" arrSt dans la Premiire Chambre de la Cour Imp^riale 
de Paris" that had decided that a simple "somraation faite au client',' was 
' sufficient for a niise en demeure, of which he, of course, disapproves. 
j In this view of Mollot should prevail as regards a resale, how much more 
should it operate against a repurchase in case of an unexpired term for the 
delivery of effects sold ? I think his reasoning is most satisfactory, in fact 
conclusive- on this point. 

This author, at No. 454, goes on to give the jurisprudence on the subject of 
the marches a termes, which are considered gaming transactions, citing the 
celebrated arret of Fo^bin Janson, analogous to the one now under consideration, 
\ aad concludes by No. 456. 

^ I am3her^fore, of opinion, that^ the balance sought to be recoverej^; .^ 

case is claimed llj-virtue of contracts proved to have been made betw^ 
^acdougall Bros. & Co: and Demers, and to have bom gaming contracts , 
'^ .- ^' intended not to be executifd to t}i||«^ral tenor, but by liquidation, setting one 
bet against another bet, and. JHVby differences of price, and that any 
oontract.s or disbursements of mogl^Kat may have been made by Maodougall 
Bros. & Co., in furtherance of , said gaming contracts, of which I think there is 
not a sufficient prooT, must Ihemselves have been made under contracts of the ' 
same nature, viz., gaming contracts. That Macdougall Bros. & Co. have not 
' shown that they w^l authorized or had a right to purchase for account of or at 
the risk and charges -of said Demers on the 3rd of May, 1883, 40;000 bushels 
of July corn, as chafged in their'a<!counts filed in this cause^ ap^rfiiled to show 
that if said ceirn had been kept sold tM^il the. month of July, ^882, they would 
have sufficed any loss thereby, or have been entitled to ckim any balance of 
^ Account .from said Demers, consequently that the judgment of the Superior 

Court, dismissing the action of the said Macdougall Bros, should be confirmed* 

/ n. J > r- « '■' * .. Judgment confirmed. 

IMnlop & Lyman, attorneys for appellants. , - ' 

^on. i?. Zf«r/7amme, counsel. 

Pe{7en'er (& t/bcJoin, attorneys for respondent. 

J. N. Belltau, eovifi'SiV : 



7\: 






SUPERIOR COUBT, 1880. 

SUPERIOR COURT, 1886. 

MONTREAL, MAY 21«T, 1886. „ 
President: —Mr. Justicb Tobuancic. 
JOHN DICK, 

• THE CANADA JUTE CO., 



185 



•r / 



PLAU^Tirv; 



DirEMDAMT) 

•• ^ ' AHO 

EtJONTRA. 

per annl .^^^^^^ of this eugngemcnt plaintiff was to receive a salary of $1,500 
Fr annua, and ,0 addition to such salary should receive annually a sun. or bonus 

It . u "' "*' "'" ''^''^ ^'' '''^'y 1 P^r ««"t. of dividend which the 

w« on ;f fir^ rrrn T"°? ^^ ""' "•'■"P*"^ ^-^ to be ascertained as it 
r^^ « -it !? , ^ °^ December then next, and the loss, if any, charged to and 

«..!.L . P"'' ^^^^' *••* "*' P^fi'^ °^t»'« oonipany under plaintiff's 

mnagement amounted te «16,331.22. which, after deduL. 6 per cent ul 
the. oapiUl stock of 835,000, to wit. $2,100, leaves $14,231.22 uZwhicST 

TflS 2r3r,^i"^T"^"\P'^^""'^ '- -^ " -"*^^^ 

tn exR'i I "'*,.'>^»150 for eve,y 1 per cent of dividend earned 

ilrST fr P*'"'"*- ^'^•^^"'^- That on the 4th of June, 1885 the 

plaintiff that he was dismissed from the employ of the company and cancelled 
«dagree^en; that said dismi^al was iHegafand in exceTof' sa^ dlt^ ^ 

for sal^ f ^ ''''" ""'"*'"'• «21,855.07, and the further sum of $5 2M 

^t $7T„ Til tTrn r^^l; i"' P-itive damages $1,000. and cost of >„. 

•fc^ «1 • * "•?/ V '"^•^^- ^«'^°<l»n^ denied that any such bbnu Aclafeod 

bj plaintiff had been earned for the year ending 30th April IsMEJi 

' Srti^ off.- !• '*! '«'"P«°«»t*<J> P^d -na extinguished long befo,^ the / 
^ ^.« r n \*"''°" ^^ *•'* "■•**" duV and payable by plaintiff to^efen!/ 
^15S5 Id? °V * ■ 'f I''' "^ •*•" '^ the^^om^ny, m;.de on the Y.h ip^S./ 

d«it in deduction of said arrears, leaving a balance of $426.09 due by plab^Ttf 



';0tiii£:S-^::^:''-:K-. 



t£^-sJ;:A:&^ki^ll:i:'il: 



/»«•■■ 



186 



SUPiSBICiR COURTf 1886. 



"J^ '^ to defonihmt bv nuch nrnarM of Lis for which dofcndunt institutod an notion on 

"^ J^li"oo'** '*'^ '^jLi'i'J^. J^^3 ; that phiint^iff wis nn employee of the company and subject 

and "-^^'®;*J''"PCt^^,und bound toLndiict himself in u roHRifctful ond obedient 

E Contra, ^jiffiyir to »he dinctor^ inolLlin,J the prosidcnt, Gcnrpo A. Drunimond; 

ihBtcu'd of flo oondnctinir himself lie, vit divers times at and before the ^t6 of his 

di'*niis^l, oonduetod himself toiaxdl miii directors, and specially to^nrds said 

president, in a wilfully offensiveJ irisoflent and disobedient mnnnor, withoul oauso 

, • or justiticiition, and treated thei|>, arid said president especially, and thdr or his 

just, reasonable and lawful rofiilests 'and instructions, with disregard and even 

contempt, a'nd ne<,'lectcd and rcjfused in fact and effect to carry out the {awful 

and proper instructions and reqiicsls conveyed to hinij and after having so acted 

and refused to aftobgizo for his misconduct and to promise to act better in future, 

plaintiff was fur misconduct and offdnsivo conduct, disobedience and neglect, and 

refui»al to perform his duty, dismisjjcd by the said company duly acting by tiie 

board of directors, and such dismis-lal was and is justifiable ; wherefore, etc 

- --- A further plea alleged in detail jacts of disobedience and insubordinat 

plaintiff. ff "^ 

ToRHANrE, J^,— Three miiiti quekions present themselves'fbr'adjudication, 1. 
The amount of bonus to which M^-.'Dick wMlentitlefiunder the agreement of 
date 2nd November, 1883, ^or ^lo-year finding thic] 30th April, 1885. 2. 
Whether the directors were jufjtifiepi^heir dismissal of Mr. Dick by their letter 
of 4th Juno, 1885. .3. Whethje;- tho^ubscription ofsljockby 3Ir. Dick of $5,000 
was only conditional, and t»eca ne inoperative by his. dismissal. 1. As to the bonus. 
At the end of the year, an in^ont|)ry and valuation of the stock and aasets were 
made by Mr. Trimble with thd assistance of Mr. Dick, and there appear^to have 
^en harmony between them. The amount of the valuation was $48^347.76. 
Mr. Trimble made a careftil repoU to the directors orhthis valuation and recom- 
s mended a first reduction of 9 per cent in view of an in^ation of values about the" 
30th April ; a further reduction rif 10 per cetit. to bring the assets to a cash'valua- 
tion ; a f^irther reduction of 10 per cent, on open accounts and of 5 per cent, op 
"^bills receivable. In tliis way the amount of profits for division was $5,931.90, out 
of which the bonus awarded to Mr. Dick W08\$ 1,809.03. Mr. Dick oomplai ns of 
these reductions as arbitrary, aijd ereditiiig them again raises the surplus profits 
to the sum of $13,684, out of which he sajfs his bonus would be $6,150 in place of 
$1,809.03. I may here say that in my opinion the statement of the witness Ed- 
wards as to the incorrectness of the calculation producing this result of $1,809.03 
is well founded. The right calculation- is shown in paper A 30 of the company, 
which mafife.sthe bonus on $5,931.90 to be$l,242. 1 make this remark, but it is 
not material under the issues as joined, for the de^ndant allows $1,809.03 by 
his plea. The important question is whether the amount of profits is to be raised 
as Mr. Dick wishes. It is to lie remember^ Chat the assets of ihe company 
remain as they were before, for the benefit of , all 'canoemed, and the question 
simply is whether Mr. Dick has the right to insist o'pon a difjsrent c ivision firom 
that recommended by the valuator, Mr. Trimble\a»d adopted by the board Of 
directors. Severe reflections are sometimes cait upon directoar^ who dividfr 



^\ 






i 



V,:^. 






'♦ > 






SUPBRIOft COURT, 1886. 



187 



JnleOa 
and 



\ 



B OontnL 



\ 



dividends wbioh iiave not been earned, and put a flotitious and false value upon John Dick 
aiaeta, whereby shareholders and the RMblio are deceived. The directors are Tbeolkad^ 

we for mwtakes^f this kind. As to the 
, , _ , „ V ' '' '' a<*'»«H«*^y Mr. Dick in his letter of 

date 18th May, 1885, to Mr. DrUmond. The reduction of. 9 per cent, added to 
the stability of the company and Wik wise, I would soy the same of the roduc 
Uon of 10 per cent, to bring the assWs to a (Siish value as nearly as might be. 
The other reductions on the open aUunts and bills receivable ore small, bu« 
they are rewonable, and at another ti^ie Mr. Dick may have the benefit ohhem. 
Would not therefore disturb. the pruAoat dispositions of the managers of this 
company acting for themselves as well\as for Mr. Dick and other stockholders. 
The bo^jMTshfiuId, therefbR, stand at 4l,809.03. Next is the question of the 
j^Mt&t^oh of the agrdfement with Mrii Dick lis the manager-of. the company. 
There is no difficulty in deciding the m^its of this question. The' evidence of 
. ten letters froq>7Ir. Dick to his superior officer is perfectly plain. • The tone 
and manner are unpleasant in the extreme, aid would naturally provoke a 
collision. But, apart from the tone and manrter of the manager in transacting 
business with the president, was there disobedience of orders and non-compliance 
* with directions? There was, in not furnishing information as to the cost of- 
impro^ments wanted or recommended, and orders for goods from abroad ' la 
answer to a reasonable request from Mr. brummond,it was not for Mr. Dick to 
write (vide letter 22„d May, 1886) : " You ask me. to give you the fullest , 
information in my power on^the subject, which I will be pleased to do if you 
will state how long you. wist me to spend in doing so to the neglect of the Co 'a 
business. It has jtaken mo twenty years to get information and I could hardly 
communicate it all to you in li week's steady writing." 

"Plant foi; proposed extensions can be had, costing from a trifle up to a sum 
beyond the Co.'s means and needs.'and the efficiency and economy is about la 
proportion to the price-ond unless you can indicate the amount of money tho 
company can aflFord I could only answer your'questions by giving a/great variety 
of estimates for the investment of the diffijrent su^s, which would entail more 
labor than I can spare at present. * * * I wish a/thorough investigation mode 
into the directors' and president's neglect and mismanagement of the company's 
affairs and their dealings with me," etc. Again, in letter of 19th May. 1886 
also addressed to Mr. Drummond :-" Your calling at the factory from 9 to 1(J 
a.m. This IB not the first misstatement of yours which I have had to correct " 
Ihe correspondence produced in the cause exhibits a perfect photograph of the 
relations of the parties. There appears to be an animus on the part of the 
manager which makes it easy to imagine how difficult it would be fqr him to 
watch over the interests of the company .. they should have been guarded. la 
February^en Mr. Dick was informed of the appointment of the new secretary, 
he said, ' Thu means war." It is testified that Mr. Dick hinted that the com- / 
r/r^ u T unproductive and be acquired cheap. He is-reported to have 
Mid that he would not do more than was obligatoiy in the intermits of the com- 
pany. My judgment is that the cancellation of the agreement had a good causa 






;,v^:. 



\^ 



168 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



John Dick 



Jate Co. 

and 
JE Gdhtm, 



f' T.. ^ ,„d« juitiflottloo. There ii, l««tlj. the qgenUon «• to the li»bi||ty of Mr 
■ - ' ^^JaS'cS"^ ^""^ '""'■ '•••■"*'*'"?»''"> «f »^< »5,000. The ^idenoe u that the nubwrip- 
-_. • tion was uncDnJitional. Ilia aii^aturo appears without remrve or qualifioation, 
and IS bindin.? upon him. The eonoluaion ti that the action aKaioHt the com' 
pauj ia diamiMod, and the demand for oalla unpaid ia maintiin^d with ooata. 
Atwattr A Croi$, attorncja fbr plaintiff, and dofendhnt 6 contra. /-^^^ 
Trenholme, Taylor, Dick$on A Buchan, attorneys for dofend«it and plain- 
tiff «>coutra. ,. ^ 



,* - 



COUR DU BANC DE LA HEINE, 1886. 
En Appel. 

MONTREAL, 87 JANVIER 188«. ^ /, 

Coram Sir A. A. Dohion, C.J., Tessikr, Ramsat, Cro^ et BAby, JJ. 

W> OLIVIER DAIQNBAD, * 

•( {D(findtut tn Cour lt^f4ri*ur«,) 

I -"^ Appelant, 

*■ ANSBLMB LEVESQUB, # 

^ {Dfliiandtur *n Covr ti\ftfieure,) 

*^ iNTIMt. 

Locatturt et locatairet— Action en txpuUion et detiiande «n dommaget—Arti. 
1612, 1614, C. C.—Mite en demture, Art. 1070 C. C 

Le jugement dont est appel % m rendu "paHa^Cour de Revision. ;i *« lit 
«omme suit : On voit quels sont lea fails de la cause. 

La Cour, aprds avoir en|«ndu lea parties par leurs avoctts sur la demande du^ 
^emandeur pour faire rdviser lo jugement pronofnc«S le 4 d^certibre dernier, 
(1884) par la Cour Sup^rieure, si^geant danaet pour le diatriot d'Ottawa/ avoir 
«xaniin^ la procedure, le dossier et deiitMi : 

Consid^rant que lo locateur est tenu^ptretenir les lieuz lou^s, en ^Ut de 
aervioe k I'usage pour lequel ils ^taient^n^s ; (art, 1612 C. C.) ; 

Consid^rant que le locateur est tenu de la garantie envers le locataire de toai 
les vitfBs et ddfautsde la chose loudequi en empeohent oudiminuent I'usage, soit 
-que le locateur las oonnaisse on non (art. 1614 C. C.) j : ' 

Consid^rant que les Hour dont il s'agit ont <5te lou«i' pour faire le commerce 
d'^piceries, en juillet 1884 ; v, . 

Consid^rantqu'apris Toooupation, le locateur a fait lambrisser la maison, aiosi 
^ju'il y ^tait oblig^ ; X - 

Considtfrant que pour cet ouvrage, il a misenVre le corps de la mai^ gt'le'lwn* 
Iris, un papier goudronn^ qui ^met une odeur de gaz trAs-forte ; 

Consid6rant-que cette odeur s'eat r^pandue partout & I'int^rieur, et qu'elle a 
impr^gni les marchanjises et effets d'^piceries pfinoipalemont, les a rebdtts 
d^sagr^ables au goflt et non mnngeables, le pain, le lard, le sucre dev^naDt 
•mpropres k la nourriture; consid^rant en fait que lbs chalands et les consont 



,> ■ 



COUR DU BANC DB LA RBINE, 1886. 



109 



Itnl?* P""*'"'*"*;^'"-' ««• «'•«*-. •« r.pporUl.nt et oot ccn^ d. .'.ppn,. 0. Daign.., 
f « onuer au magM,„ du domaadeur, H raiwn do I'odeur d<5goOUnte doat ItH nro- a , " 

.nSd'-ifr' r '" i*'"*"^'" ■ '^»^ •»P«<'W ^« ftire I'MpIoiUtion qu'll - * 
eotOfld«Ufair««t«»uffertdeHdonimtgeB; , ^ 

Co„«dj..nt que cctte odeur ct oau.de par Toi^pIoK do r«ipdoe do papior ^ 
goudronn,J omploj^ dao, et pour le Umbri«.,«Ko, ct quo lu oho^i iSuA, a JyL. 

. qu lis eri ompOohent et diminuent la jouiaiianoe promiae - 

Conalddrant quo le dem^ndour eat en droit, A ratoon de ee. vices ct d^fauta, 
^ de^oma^der 1. rd«liation du bail et le. dommaRo. qu'il a wufferta : 
Uon.id^raDt quo oes dommago. Mnt d'au moiu. «200 • 
D«ioli|re qu'il y « erreur dan. le jugmwt de 1« Cour Sup<Jrlcure. rendu la 4 
.Jcembre 1884, qui a d^boutd I'aotion dudeman^our, inflVn.e et J.Tl,iL, 

wT^; f rT'rr* * '*"''" ""'"' '^^ •'* ^^'' ^"" Supdriouro auralt ddTO 
C; .H 7 '. * "' r?"' '• '"'" '''^'21 juin 1884, paMd en.ro lo. dite. 
Jtrtjes attendu lea vice, de la cho.« loude, et oondamno le d<Jfcndour a payer aa ^ ' 

iti r/' \'^TV' ^^'^ ««-.♦' P''"""" «200 pour .e. doomage, aveo 

UcT V!^**- ^ V"'"''" ^^^' ■»''" •^^ l'"«'iR"ation et le. diipen, .ant de 

1* Cour SupjJncuro que de cetto oour, diatraita 4 Maitro. Roohon et Champagne 
-ahrooatadu dcmnndeur." N^uumpagne, 

L'appelant «oumot qu'il y a erreur d,n. le jugement de la Cour de R^viaion • 
pfyer 4 1 ,nt,m.^ dea dommage. qui auraient pu lui rdsjilter > vice, oa dtffaut. 

I 2. Parce que Ics dommnge. rd^ultant 4 1'intimd do I'inexdoution de'aon contrat 
a^eo ou, CO qu. revient au rnfime, d'une exiJcuifeft imparfaite de oe contrat ni, 
ppuvnicntlui fitre rdclamda, .an. une mise en M^re prtfalablo • 

,3. Pait quo la r<5«]iation no pouvait 6tre aocdj^p qu'A ddfaut par l'appelant 
de fa.re a« l.eux loud. Ic reparation, auxquelle. if dtait tonu, dap. u„ d^ai A 
etro 6x6 par le tribanal. 

4. Parcc qu'aucun jioniniage n'eet prouvl^ 

Le. codificateurs, din. le rapport qui acoompagne leur travail aur le louaee • - ' 

le.rdgle.de la loi enforce 4 I'tfpoquode la oodifioation " 

la fhl\'""f " ?■■"''' r '^^' '"'"'^ ^'"'* ^"« '^'''«*'^« «<"i '^"0" 1« vice de 
k ehose lou<5e, n'e.t p, re.pon«»blo en dommage. vi.-4:vi. le looataire 4 rai J 

^;^:j::it;[n ^" '^'^""•^^-^'- ~ ^'-^- ^^ ; 

teuf^lJ'C ^^" |°°«««.(^<'i«on B„ig„eO. «prd. avoir d<Jclar<J que lel^a- -^r ^^ 

te«r«t tenu desdom^ageMntdrfita r&ultanrdea vice, de la *ho«, qu'il con- 
b«M..t au moment duWntrat, ajonte au No 120 rj" Hor. ce ca., lo Jteur qui - ^ 

n.p«conpun.#<«oHtr.^ ^ 

d<5dommagorlelooaipijedelttpcrteqo'ila«)uffcrtedecevice" .° 



I 



♦v; 



IM 



COITR mi BANC DP. I.A REINR, 1880. 



'i 



i). D»l|(n««a Homnt, Du lou.^.^ lY, «»ot. HI, No. 8. 

A. Urtiqaf. Troplong, liu lou««*; t I, rar I'aVliol^ 1721, p. 1, 2, 3, '4; 6,^, 7, 8, 9, 10. 
A U pRK« 11, No,/200, la mAmo autour dit : 

" Maia ooiiima lo vioo orriwi dnpuia la ooiitrat aat d« oeiiz qua la proprW- 
" tairo ignore, da iixiiiia preKquo toujour*, il na d«vra paa da donimoua»-intd- 
" rCta." 

DuTorRior, Du louiiga, t. I, No. 341. 

Le iii(>uie nutour nti No. 344 H'cxpriiiie oinai : 

'• Maia la gnrontio duo ti raiaon da com viouaaurvenun pondunt la durde du bail 
"•et qui na bo nianifoHtent par auoun ajinptflmo au moment du oontnit, na pout, 
" comnie jo I'oi prdciJonimcnt oipliqud, ontratnar qu'uiie diminution du prix at 
" la rtlsilintion du bull ; ello no aiturait donnor liou^ & dea dommagea-int^rCts 
" contrc le bniilqur prot«Jg6 par aon ignoraiKa invinoiblo." 

L'nrtiolo 1721 du Coda NiipoltJon oat dana dea ternioa qui rondont la reapon- 
anbiliKJ du iooatuiro plus praiido qu'olle d<} I'dtait hous rnnoion droit, et plua 
grondo qu'ello ne I'est sous rarticie 1614 de notre Code, puiaqua le dernier para- 
^ graphe deoot artiole 1721 ddolaro: 

" S'il rdaulto de oci vicoa ou dtSfauta, mSme'inoonnua lora du bail quelque 
parte pour le pronour, le baileur eat tcnu do I'indomnisqr," et quo oe paragi^^ipha 
no so trouve paa notre Code qui eat la production de I'anoien droit, comme nous 
Tavona d«5j4 dit. 

Copondant loa commentateura du Code Napoldon aur oet article, d^olarent 
que le looateur n'est pas tonu en dottimages, loraque lea vicea lui ont 6t6 iocon- 
,, •' nui. 

Marctdd, t. VI. aur Turtiolc, 172irpr465 et 466. 

Boileux, t. VI, aur I'artiole 1721. p. 44, 45, 46, 47 et lea autoritds oitees par 
cet auteur. ^ , . ' 

- I^«urent, t. XXV, Nob. 122, 123. 

Auoun dommage resultant de I'inox^oution d'une obligation . n'eat'acbord^ i 

moina qu'il n'y ait inise en demeure pr^alablo. 
C. C. B. C. art. 1070. 

Code Napoleon, arta. 1146 et 1146. , 

Larombidre, t. I, pages 617, 519. j. ^ * 

\ Demolombe, t. XXIV, p. 316 et auivantes, i ^"^ < 

II Stephen Digest, p. 461, Phibien w. Moir, S. C. R. " ' 
Aux termes de I'artiole 1641, le looataire a droit d'aotion pour contraindre 

le locateur i^ fairo lea r(^panitipns stipule par le bafl,.ou pour obtooir la permis- 

aion de lea faire aux fraia du locateur, et faire rdsilier le bail, 4 dtffaut de I'eM- 

43ntion de tellea reparations. 

loi riotim^, n'a adopt<S ni Tun ni I'autre dea deur-^'jprcmiers reoours. II n'a 
.pas demand^ que Tappwlant fQt condamn^ 4 faire lea reparations et il n'a pas 
demands que I'intinie fut autoris^ A lea fair«, k d^faut par I'appelant de lea faire 
luNpfime. ' Ce n'^tait que subsidiairement qu'il pouTait demander la r^siliation 
du bail, et ce n'dtait que subsidiairement qu'elle pouvait gtre acoord^e. 

Art 1641. C.C. ^ 



• '•\j 



■ ♦ , ■ 


V ' ,-- ' ■ 


i ■ 






\:.: _• 




N 


- 


■ - 


.1 


i,- ' 








■ - . ' ^^'^' V :.': 


s.' '. . ■ 




: ■ * 


" <■" . ■• 


■ * ■ 














^-M 



4 



I B^ 



OOUR DU BANC DB LA RKINK, 1886. 



191 



•I. L C. R. Bo^■n)(«t VI. Doatr«, p. 393. 
IV. L. 0, R. UdqUngel i;,. Doutre, p. 170. 
LaromblAr., t, I, (Soa,m«nUlw .or I'.rtieU 1148 

II n'lt dZ •" m" '"°''''*'''''" ^'"*""«- '»••'" -o" bail aveo iT 

\ dirrTndre ^1 ''""Tr^"" «»'^ P-'^" ^^ •«' "»-, nous citeron, una 

'. dl F.tl ^.^ ^ * '* T*"'" **'""" »"''«>° i"»-bitable et m«l«ina . la L 
del .bondonner. at par [a a.«™e, da rtailiar la ball, sans action. n.nuZl 

^ZZr^Tf^'"'' ,t cala, qnand b.en n.fi»a k nais.ncaur.rpuW 
enlaviJa A pen de frais at sous pau de tamps." 3 R. L p 441 

16H dTcoda' tBelLS^r' *' "J""" * ^"'^ "PP«'^^« -*^" ^« ''"««'• 
p'i; «?.« »^elieft«.le. »ou3 fournit un cas .bsolan.ent. I^ndentiqua a„ 

"d^;««r ff ^l" "° "'''"'* •'y • tenant against hi; landlord for 
f iTnd't an" ? "'"• ^ ^' *'*'"""'""« of insufficient ,«ter pipes. Z 

ground thatu was through Ms neglect that dan»gas occured. It beingprovel 



0. D«i(M.» 
A. £«r«ai(a|k 



-•i 



mta6. 

Intuit 
teWs 



:'i^ 




N' 



IM 



oouh: du uano de la Iiuib, ism. 



» 



(O. DalfMAa 



.-JC 



" thai pIpM bid bummi aMottntof.thilr bad quftlitj.flrat aoUon wWnainlalacd 
"and acoond db»(nlMfld " Voir auaai BoanUo »>«. Uolnaf, 2 L. N, p. 18ft, it 
Jjomoaier vi. I)oUcllor«uilU, & L. N. p. 426. 

Noof oltarooa anfln la lauaa d« lUnlllard «««Oowan A al, rapport^ aa 6 Q.. 
L. R. p. 30ft : . L'autonr dea d4r«ad«un avail loii4 au deoiandaur uit* tiMiaoi 
pou^ J Aublir UD atalior do pliotofrraphia. Plui Urd, liia d4Sr«qd«ura <friK4ranl 
■ur 4m propria aToiiioanta^^i aux apparteoant, un tuur da ringt-deux pioda 
qat « r«ff«l4'tokT«rau'damaDd«ur partia da l»lamlAr«dool il avail baaoin poar 
exoroar ion m^tiat. Jtif,6 : Qua I'tfreotion du mar an quaation oonaUtua^war la 
loaauire un troubia dana aa^ jouiaaanoa, ot lui donna droi| 4 |a r4aili4^ 
lion 4** bail el 4 daa donmagaa oontre laa rapn(««oUnta do aon looataiilr. La 
plupart d«a ramar^aa fuitaa par la aava^^ugaf Cuaull, dana oatta daiuy qua 
noua oitdna, peuvent a'appliqaar au eaa.da I'inti^. 

*'4*i^ ^|9^g•pallt ootnflrnd. 



I 






RobidoUx et Portin, avooata da rapptlaot. 
Rathon tt Champagne, «TdoaU da riiiijia^.' 




... f..>. 



Pr^seflta 



COUS.SUPBRIKURBL ^ 
■' - (En Rtvisiffw)."' i o. 

MDKTRBAIy JK) JANVliK ^^8M. '. 
las bonorablea jiigda Doiiiiitt, Papiniau» L<l|»Aiiai». 
- JAlfB^ P. WOLFF, 



U 



.] 



1 A 






Le difendenr, ajooos^ d'iofraot^a 4 oette fUapoaitioa de la loi, a plaids, 
d'abori, par una ex^)tion i-la forme qui a 6t6 renvoj^e au m^rite. II n'a pu 
«ppel^ de oe jugem^t ei il ne p^ut en dtre question aur la pr^nte inaorip- 
4ion eo R^viaioB.x.: ■" :- '* 



" ^ -3^ 



II a plaids en sepond Ueu, par une defense en droit dont lea moyena aont 
r^p^t^s par one' exception an fond. La d^fenae en droit » M dtfbout^Se, ainii 
ue I'exoeption aaiond st o'eat de oe jugement dont il demande la revision. 



I 



\K 



t >OEORaK.W. OLARKB, 

Marrhandiiu envfiiquitt par hf^lffxiaHf—Amtnd^ 46 Tici.,-eA. 12, tte, \%2.r 
^ LoRANOEit,- J. :— Le deroandeur, aaent da d^partomoi^leir dooapca, poutruU le , 
d(«ftmiouTf Bn Verti^e la iwotron 162 dtt oUapitre 12 Me lai6 Viot;, quid<5olail 
quo quioonque aidera ou akssisteta,' de qftotl^ue m»nidre que pe aoit, 4 importeri 
4^harger,d<barquer, ou transpoftery' o^yeotf tffr, On reoevra aoieoiment entre nea 
•maina.ou en aa ppaeeasion dea effete BuJ^eta 4 eonfisoation qui auront^t^ transport^i 
dana dea naviree ou dana dea Toitur<ta pi^ra le triple de la valour de cea effete 
«tt enoourra une amende de $200, au\^oix jfti la partie qui en pourauivra le 
reoojdvrement 



J 



. 'I 



COUJt SUPEniEURR, 1886. 



I ,1 



m^ 



Le d^fendeu; a en outre ploidd afl'ih ■»■{» »I^{A -«»x " j >.l 

wr u du dit aote pi>» «»..:ki . ' secuoii lOJ. -lio ddfcndour en 

I^.Ju«e.cntdoat.tappol.opa.uLfor.odl^oitd;it.treLfl ' 

. ^- While, avoct du demandeur. ^ I - J«gciHont ooofirmd. - - - 

'fo*. TtrriU, avocat dli ddfendeur. " ; •. ^ 



"r 



1 

V 


■ ■ : V. , -y ■ ■■ 


- - t . »■ 


— r ^ 




■:4V' .^;;.,;^-;- :•■■■■: :^: 



N 



194 



PEIVY COUNCIL. 1886. 



1^-, 



t.-': 






PRIVY CbUNCIL, 1886. 

f 

LONDON, FEBRUARY ISrn, 1886. 

Before Lobdb Fitzgerald, MoNKawELL, Hobhoube and S|B JUghard . 

Couch: . 

'-■ ■ -> 

On the 4poD8olidated Appeals from the Oourfc of Queen's Bench for Lower 
t -:;• Canada, in the Province of. Quebec (-Appeal Side.) -^ 

"^ - Between 

THE EXCHANGE BANK OF CANADA, (in Liquidation), Louis H. Massue (contei- 
taut), and Archibald Oam|>t)eH knd al. (Liquidators, mi* en eaute), 

^^ Appellant* i 

JlER MAJESTY THG QUEEN, -Y^prcscnted therein by the Minister of Finance and 
Reoeirei General of Capada (creditor and claimant), . 

Jf „ Respondent*; . 

\ ' ' ' i ^ '' *'"' ' '■■ 

HER MAJESTY ;THE QUEKN, ri^presenteiJ therein by The Honorable Joseph Gibb 
^. Robertsoii, TrcHsurer »f the FroTince of Quebec, and The Honorable Louis 
Olivier Taillon, Attorney General of the Province of Quebec. 
.'"' ■» Betpondentt. 

Hrlo :— 4of' That the privileges of the Crown in the Province of Quebec are to be zovemed 
, .Jjytbelaw of the c'urtutrj^, as d,erived from France, and is not affected 
by English rules. ' * 

; 2o. In deciding a doubtful question of law, great weight is to be given to a 
uoiform previous cb^ii^icticfn covering a considerable period. 
3o. The word "comptable" ifi^ticle 1994 C. 0. does not mean every debtor of 
the Crown 'b.u^ jjnjy such as receive by virlue, of their office Crotm 
revenues, aiui:a.i[o accountable ^pr them. " , 
Afi, The Crown has no '^^fbg^ over other creiHtors eicept for amounts due by 

iu '^comptables." ^ " ^ . , ^ 

. So. Whcrcihc Civil Code and the Code of CiviL Procedure are in apparent 

conflw't, it ia tlipd"*y of th^ourt*o reconcile them, by thpr>^'ficati(^n, 

according to circumstances, of one or the other-; The Co<1« of OiTJl 

^ Proeedure in apart nrovidinir for tbe dintri^ntinn of rr^ney* t»»ied 

"^ would not be presumed to have intended to create a privilege iacoQ' 

sistent with article 1994 of the Civil Code, especially when, by * 

„ .. statute passed by the same Legislature almOit at tbe sqme time, such 

privilege was abolished in Ontario, 

' Oft the 15th September, 1883, th6 Exchange Bank of Canada went into 

liquidation under the provisions of the Act 4^ Victoria (C.) Chapter 23, aD4 

Archibald Campbell, Frederick B. Matthews and Thomas Barling were 

appointed liquidators. , ^ 

On the 10th of March, 1884, the Attorney General for the Pominionof 
Canada filed a claim against the Bank for $237,840, amount of two loans of 
$100,000 each, from the Dominion (Government to the Exchange Bank, with 
interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, and $37,840, a deposit belong^i^ 
to said Government, whioh the Bank held at the time it went into liquidadon. 
QlP^ the 15th of March, 1884, the Attorney Creneral for the Province of Quebec 
«iao filed a claim iigainst the Bank for an amount of $75,000, a deposit which 
the Quebec Goveroment had made with the Bank in September, 1883, and for 



«->v- 



,/ rfp- 



'4'- 



PRIVY COUNCIL, 1886 




Bank the.r,respeot.Ve claims over all other creditors of the ^ 

OIL , . HerMajwttr 

Ibese claims on the Dart of thn »»» r^ The Queen. 

dators of the :Sanlc ns we ll W 7 ^°TT'' '«'•«<'«'• t««»«d »>J the liq«i- 

>efeditor for $3,050 aioiint of n^^ . fT ^'"'^' ""'''''^'' ''"«''* «'^- * 
claimed that^uTde\rCkL?rt^^^^ bills i„ its hands, . ^^ 

12, this should be, and was a fim chtr T ^'^"""'•^ ^"""'^^ ^2, section 
The claim. „f I, J- J ' ""^''''^ge on »•>« assets of th? Bank 

iM. """"•"""'•''■»"■"""• °'"«' a«0.«g. tt.nk, which it 

initrfr^t.iXtrrd'"- '^ «.'-'^"«™ »»"-»'«... "..gov™. 
"J «™<li.or. of the Br.r "' '" """"""yi^htR ofc, „,di.- 

«.. Gov.™m«,.ofthe P™ri.o.rfQl°j!i ""'''"»'""»»■' G<"o™me.t ..d 
I«t.rH««hril,ftC Mr G W B K .1 ^^' """^ ""PO"*.-!. by Sir 

... j.»i.i» o,'<^.^iix&?s'? i::: M^-^rr *- 






;h, .■ 



4. 



/ 






196 



PRIVY COUNCIL^ 1886. 



'2^^^*^iK* as well as by the lonR-establishod jurisprudence of the country, tlio pcnerul' 
utda privilege of the Crown was limited to claims against persons "aocouhtable 

The Queen. That neitlier by the law of Prance nor of Lower Canada could the B int be 
held«> to be a "comptabU" or accountable in the sense of a " comptahle" ftr' 
the moneys of the Crown, ' That the Crown was entitled to privikgo only for 
debts due by its " comptables," That in French law, the word " ooinptablo ' 
had a strict tn^nloitl meaning, and applied only to persons who were >agents of 
the Crown, and who hffd received its moneys in that capacity, and no other. 
That tho-rights of the Crown ar« defined by the Code, the provisionsof which are 
as binding uponit as those which aflFoot individuals arebindinoMipon the indivi- 
dual. Article 1994 C.C- defined the claims which carried privi^ge on movable 
/ property, and the only privilege^hioh it provided for the Crowi^ Was against its 
, eomptables, which cume in the tenth rank^aftcr the enumeration oi'othcr claims. ' 
The claim of the crown, in so far as it was'fouiidoi uu iht- €^i> wut* prinoipaiiy 
^ based oO' Article 611 G.P.C., which pro^ded^that : " In the absence of any 
special privilege, the Crown has a jlrefereWse over chirographic creditors, for 
sums due to it by the defendant. ^'^ ^^^ claims of the Crown to a privilege for 
the debts due it, irrespective of their nature or origin, were based on this vague 
aiid general statement. In the Courts below, all the judges were agreed that, 
prior to the Code, the Crown had.no such right as that now claibied; but a 
majority of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were of opinion that a ne*^ 
substantive right was given to the Crown under Article. 611 of the Code of 
Civil Prooedjure, a new right of privilege over all unsecured creditor* for debts 
due to it by the defendant, whatever may be origin or nature of the same. 

The appellants contend that this article, which was a mere article in the Code 
of Procedure, in view of the scope of that Code, coujd not be assumed to be 
intended to-give an entirely new 'right, inconsistent with, and going beyond any 
rights which were given by the Civil Code ; this article must be interpreted as 
giving effect to rights defined in the Civil Code, and not as giving a new right.. 
JChe Code of Procedure provided a mode of giving effect to the right, while the 
Civil Code gave the right. 

This Article 611 of the Code of Procedure, was ambiguous, and must be 
interpreted in the light of and general scope of the whole legislation, and not 
. read in its literal meaning, isolated from the positioli in which it is foundi 
Article 611 must be read secundum subjectam ma<mam with reference to the 
place in which.it was found in the Code , and it must not bb assumed that in a 
Code of Procedure and in a matter relating to the execution of judgments the 
Legislature intended to nullify the careful specific provisions of Article 1994 of 
the Civil Code. This was not one of the major prerogatives of the Crown, which 
* it had in all its dominions, it is one of those minor incident prerogatives of the 
Crown of which the existence must be determined by the law regulating the 
civil rights of Her Majesty's subjects in that particular part of her dominions 

In Canada these rights are governed by 



in which it was sought to enforce it. 



French law, the ditference between Ifie parties as to the scope of the rights 



SJT' 



'^W* 






PmVY COUNCIL, 1886. 



197 



'^i'^lwe'-' TCtl'""*" *T nP"-'P-»y - ♦•'« «>-«ingof th, word The R.oU.., 
oomptawe. The decisions of the Court* ia Prance and Canada were .11 in B-nko^O^ 

revenues of the Crown as agents of the Crow.^, and were against the view that ^h^^S^ 
H .ncluded ordinary debtors of the Crown upon loan and si^le Intra "" ''••~- 

Mr M«,a,aBter,Q.C., followed on the same side. 

had';h!'i:i^rta1'\?-''-;^^ ^™''" -ublnitted that the Cn,wu ' 

ijad the same rights in Canada as in other parts of its dominions • that if the 

abr-TiT " T;" ""^^''^'^ ^J' *« •'PP*""*-' ««» that .'compt- 

able bore a more extended meaning than that attributed to it. That whew 

«r::,ei th" '"•'" •^v'''^™'"' '■•^ '^^^"'--'^ "^ ce^iion .rr 

the rilht ^h hTkT """'*''"« ^" *''* '^''"" ^f *»" "•^''-•«'' »« »«>«' or effect 

' It b^me part of th«^™"-" /u"'" '"""''' *'"'* ^"•""' •" "°«» ^ 
1^ of the P TT"^ "^ *'"' ^""' *'~*"'« '^^i^^'o »" the prero- " 

rlin exSirT .T'" \f. ^'"^ '^"^•*''»"''' "r ^'•^ «>«>tinu^ion of •* 

certain existing laws, which would be inconsistent with tLe minor prerogatives 

of the inhabitants of Canada are to bo governed by the law of France " this 
app .ed only to the rights of subj^ts inter ,. the righis between tkCo;D „d 

Fl:hcrw„*"':i^""°''f''^p'^^^^^^^^^ ' 

French Crown, and consequently in the Province of Quebec, J5 apart from 

Mr. Church, Q.0., foiloired on behalf of the Ctt)wn ^ #'/ 

CrowTh""""**'''';^^*" ""'^ "**'"•»** *»"«•*'«" '° '»•" ^^-^ " whether "the 

.on IS entiUed to priority of payment over its other ordinary creditors ^That 
again depends .„ the question how the two Cades of Uwer Catfad^^e to be 

h Crt' ?• " '"*'^'^* ''^ P"''"''''^ '" «»>«-«vely dealt with, so that 

th other points which have been elaborately treated both in the Colony and ' 
Jll '."u^ ""'''''^'"''^ '"P""""*'"' though undoubtedly they have a 

hrthelwlir'T'"'''''"^'"- Their Lordships are iso clear 
that the law relating to property in the Province of Quebec or in Lower 
Canada fi^n. 1774 to 1867, when the Codes came L foZ, In^Z 

sZeoffia *'rr''".'"^- Probably such ^as the true effect 0? the - 

eulntofH ""'"^ III, cap 83 ; but it all events there has been a uniform 
cunent of decision to that effect in the Colony, dating back forty yeaVsor so 
before the date of the Codes, whieh ought not niw to I questioned "^The L^t 
qoestio, IS whetherthe Fi^nch law gave the Kin. nrio2 in J^. JTI:'^ 



; 01 those only due by " oomptables." There does not seem to 
\ , AuGtwT, Vol. 30— No. 8. 



ml 



if 



m 



U-t-: 



108 



» 



nUVY COUNCIL; 188(!. 



^a? k**fO°''*'"* ^"' *"^ difference of opinion on the point in the CSiooj. The three 
nad» judgCBwIio decided for (he Orown n))on the nltimate question, and the two 
• 7lOT*M»eiiT|"'"*'*^*'' ''^** "^««'dcd the other way oil thought I ho priority given by the French 
TheQMMD. '"* «tonded only to comptnWe*. And in the appellant's ouHe filed on the appeal 
from Mr. Justice Muthieu, it is elaborslely arj^ncd ihut the English law, and not 
the'Frenoh lowy prevailed in Lower Ofinada ; hut it is never Buggestt'd that the 
priority now claimed could be oluiuied under I he French law. That nuggestion, 
however, hns been made upon this appeal t«» Her Miijesty, nnd has been'etrongly 
contended fof at the bar. The matter reals wholly on.the French authoriticH. 
It appears to their Lordships that the drcisioii cited iVnm Pothier is conclusive of , 
thequcHtidii, lihleMS itcau becontradiutcdoreiVlained'away. It is not. uonoeivabic 
' that the advisers of Louis XIV. should, if an unlimited priority eii>ted, address 

"'wnt'elves to the exact definition by edict ol' a limited priority, or ihut Pothier' 
should comment on the edict without any ret«renco to the more sweeping rule. 
But, 30 far from being contradicted or explained uwuy, the passage in question 
in supported and emphasised by later aulhoriticH. There is the- Ciise reported 
by Sirey, showing one clement of the King's priority, namely, that his right 
agninat " qpmptables" did not extend to purveyorir who might have been paid in 
advance. There are the authorities cited in the note to that case, who all draw 
the distinction between one kind of Crown debtor and the other. There is tli« 
j^ authority of the Nouveau Denisnrt, expressly drawing the distinction between 

the official debts of the compttblo and. his private debts due to tho King, and 
the case of Sieur Bouvelais, which illustrates that distinction. If the priority, 
.contended for exibted in the Frci^h Uw, there coiild be no iifficiilty in 
proJumng authority to that effect. Kasiish text book.'? and report* abound 
, with artscrtions of the King's prerogative as wo know it. '^ But absolutely no 

authority was produced io the colony in opposition to the decision of Mr. 
Justice Mathieu, and now nothing is produced, except iJje work of a Councillor 
^ of State, writing in the year 1632. Taking tho French law to be as laid down 

by the whole of the judgaj below, the next question is, what is tiie proper 
construction of article 1994of the Civil Code, and the only difficulty in it, when 
considered alone arises from the use of the expressions " sea coniptables" and 
" persons acoouniable for its monies." Here again we have complete accord 
among the judges in the colony that the expressions indicate not all the debtors 
of the Crown, but a limited class of such debtors known to French lawyers 
under the name of " comptables." The strongest expression of opinion to 
that effijct is made by the judges who decided in favor of the. Crown. 
That, the word "comptables" is ». technib{tl terui of Prenoh law, 
denoting officers who receive and are aooountable fot. the King's 
revenues has been abundantly shown from the treatises cited at the bar; 
it has not been shown that in lef^Mocuments Uie word is ever used in the 
general winse of "debtor" or -^rson responsible." It stands in the Code, 
as it is likely a term of art would stand, as a noun substantive, which explains 
itself, to lawyers by itself, and does not require the addition of any explanatory, 



4.' 



/ 



iJ8 > 



if»a 



.J'RI VY COUNCIL, 1886. 

«> engaged weru,C e^^^lnij^^ '''''^"'"' '''^'^""^ 

French la,vyer. .nd nreei Jw^ltl^T* A ^"'** """*'"»' woU-known ... 

ui«,d; EvL he lner.Tdt • J ^^^^f "•«'*' ""«» ^^ "hich other word» .ro 
consulted lnoUea7«„:fT' '"'*'''' ^' "'"'''' ^''"'' '-'"^'^'P- "-e 

.ujetti i rendre comnt! -I^o """" "^J*"*''*' "»"' = " «"' «•' "'^ 

"ooniLAtenireUrenl i^"*'« ''"'>"«•»»'« *''J«ctive tt,«..._"Qai . de,' 

pHori/ai nJ'z^::^::^^^::^^-^^!:^: r '; ^^'^^ *'• -"" 

"dto deniera et de son emnloi " rS«» • u ^ \! " '^^ ''*'"'*" ^""P** 
«aya of the word « ."uZn i,e ^^o:::^'^^' "' ^"""""""'" 
"aasujettie 4 rendre oou.pte d^' .ffatVe/^^^^^^^^ 
Spiem render it in Eneluh "An .««« * . » ^ Coutanaeau and 

Lord-hip, have notS'^, t ceTr^^.^T^^^^^^^^^ "r" ^'''' 
debtor or person under liabilify exlJin «S i ^"""■''' """^"*^ " 

" debtor " Bimplv bv the word "?1V T?,''""": ^""*'" »"^ ^P**^" --^ader 

atutor,Art.308e«,ey.; of an h<Jritier b«$n^fieaireAru 677 of anexeoutor Ar/ 
913 «< ,«y. ; of a huaband for his wife's froods Art Uor V ««""*»'' ^'t- 

of partners Art 189ft Ti-J T *^ ' '^ ' ''^'" "8*"*' ^'t- 1^13 ; 

found .rUt»J!nth« r--^^ "^"''^*»' •'"* »''«y»'uve no 

eularlv r.n T T aemwurs, see Tit. III. throughout, and parti- 

cularlj Cap 7. To express general liability the Code uses sueh verbs .a TnYr 
repondre, oha^ser, and their inaexion. and derivatiTea^f tJL T ^^ ' 

» popular seme. 



hir TnoRlrhange 

llfink of Ca- 

imda 

And 

ITpr.MKJMtr 

rh« QuMn. 



^*. 



^,; 



^■•v 



'I, 

-'it 



Tba fixiliango 



200 



PRIVY COUNCIL, 1886. 



itenk ol' Ch 
nada .-% 
JUDtt -' 

The yiie,.,i. 



Artiolos 1778 and 1779 of the Civil Code leom (o be founded en the same 
view. Mr. Justice Rnnisay says that to call a debtor accountable to his oredi<^ 
tor would ^bo a perversion of langunge. Their lordships, without going so far, 
cipnot 8^0 why, if the drnftsmen of the English version intended to speak of 
English debtors they oshould not have used the oommoo term for the purpose. 
Or, rather, they woula|iavou!M3d,no term at all, bat would simply have mentioned 
the claims of the Crown. In fact, the terms used are strong evidence that in this 
passage thq English version is really a translation from the French, and tiiat in 
translating' a French teohnieal term for which there is no English equiva- 
lent, the draftsmen have used the best paraphrase they could think of. Their 
words are quite applicable to the " oomptable," that is, an officer collecting 
revenue is bound to earmark the funds to account for them* and not to use 
them as his own. Such is the position of an officer under article 
31 Victoria, chapter 3, section 18, as set out in the record. They 
may possibly include some other oasejs, but they are not applicable to 
a bank receiving money on deposit or current account. Construing the words 
according to the technical sense of comptabUi, we come to the last question. 
In this article the word "4%fendant " is used with strict accuracy in reference 
to the subject matter of the title 'under which it is found, but must receive a 
reasonable latitude of construction in applying the article to eases where there 
18 no defendant. And it would seem that the words " in the absenoe of" wonld 
require to be read in t|ie meaning of " subject to," for it can hardly ha^9 been 
nieant^that the rule was not to apply in any case where there were more special 
^privileges to be answered. When construed in all other respects literally, the 
article certainly gives to the Crown the priority claimed for it in this suit. But 
then it comes into conflict with article 1994 of the Civil Code. In the first 
place by giving to the Crown a priority for all its claims it swamps, the limited 
priorith^ given by the 10th head of article 1994, and renders the head unmean- 
ing, put beyond this there is actual inconsistency between the two articles. 
According to the literal construction of 611, the Crown has priority over 
funcra^l expenses and other classes of debt^||^ioh by 1994 have jpfiority over 
the Crown. It would seem that the majority of tibe Queen's Bench paid no 
attention to this conflict. They s^y t^oy are askecf to set aside 611 on the 
• ground that it got into the ^ode in some wrongful way. They were asked to 
do so, and were quite rigH m their refusal. But they were also asked to. 
construe the Codes as they stand, and as Mr. Justice Mathieu had done. They 
"did not notice 'the conflict of 611 with 1994 ^r theneoessity of modifying the 
construction of one or the other. But the duty df the judge is, if possible, to 
reconcile the two, and for that purpose to look at a)f relevant circumstances. 
The appellants at the bar pressed solnFfhaFtotfabinrfutely, the argument that 
a Procedure Code is not intended toienact substantive Idw^ and that this part of 
^Ithe Procedure Code is only intended to give directions to the Court how to carry 
the rulps of the Civil Code into cff<^t. The two Codes should be construed 
together, just as if the articl^of the Procedure Codei^ollowed the corresponding 



4i«w iwes of ^tbfr43ivil Co^. ** 8o r eadtng-thotn-we^fiwi^fett-the- mam^i^trpose^w 
litis part of the Procedul^ 6ode is to carry into, dctaimhe principles laid down 



';'*»■ 



f 



i-!^ 






P^IVY COUJS'CMi, 1886. 



201 



be diBtributed. And -where other ol.uea of priority .ro eetobliehed, they .ro ""''' ^' «"- 
.«bord.n.to one. not interfering with the other clM.ifio.tion of the C v 1 CoJ -1.' 

of IT ^Z^ T- P"*"^"'" P'^x^d-^Code to contr.Tene the prinoiplea V^e Sft^ 
^ worker?' "** '* "f""' ^" "^'•"" ^^'"^ *»••* *»»' ^''^ '•'• bSie Jto 

1. »r. ? .' * "" '* ***"""'' ""~""^ *« "^'•'y »he one or the other the v 
.ct that the funcfofl of the Proeedure Code i. in thi. p.rt of it « Bubord nat^' ^ 
one favors the conclusion that it is the one to be modified 

That there should have been any deliberate intention giving a larger exten- 
..on of pr.v,Mto the Crown by the indirect metbod of inserting prov sion iTa 
group of c ausesre ating to an especial distribution of property taken in ezl- 
11 .7 y.'" '?"'""' '" '^'^- ^"^ '••' i-probability s much 

la llf ^'''"; '''™"8'^ yPP*' ^'"'^''* "»« very same principle which it is hold to 
have been setting up through Lower Canada. \ 

The foregoing-are their Lordships' reusona\r concluding that full effect 

fied so as to be read .n harmony with the other. T\ere is a di^culty about it 
as there always is in these oases of inconsistency Following thrruJl^^^^^^^^ 
by section 12 of the Civil Code, their LnrdshiLhold that the meanin. of the 
I^.slature must have been to speak to the fol|wing effect^-" Subje;t tothe 
spec^l prmicgesprovided for in the C,des, the^rown ha, such prefeCce o L 
ch^raph.o creditors as .s provided in article 1994." or, adhering as closely as . 

possftle to Its rather inaccurate, language :-" la the absence oF any sp cia 

pnv.1^ the Crown has a preference over privileged chirographic creditors fo 
«u.«s due to ,t by the defendant b^eing accountable for it, nfoney." The r"sS 

.3 that ,n the opinion of theit Lordships, the Court of Queen's Bench oueht to 
b^d^mssed with costs tl^appeulWu^^ Won^^umb^ ' 

adv.se Her Majesty to mate, such a decree. Therrespondents by whom the v , 

Crown IS represented will |,aytl,^^tsotthe consolidated appeals 

Judgment reversed. 



J 



ippella^ts 



Horace t>avey, Q.C. 

D. Macmasterl Q.C. 

-'V. W. frenhohne, counsel for a 

Sir Fafrar Her$chdli^:i(f. 

G. W. Biirbridge, QJ). I 

L. RuggUk Church, \cj ' 

F. H. Jeum, oottneel for respondents 




-Cm 



-\ , -iitis 



\ 






202 



COUB DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



% 



' r . 



COUR DU BANG DB LA RBINB, 1886. 



(Em Afml.) 

QUEBEC, « FBVRIBR 188C. 

Pv^Honto: Lm honorable jogM.MoNK, BamIat, Tiwim, Crom et Bait. 



Dbtu. K. M. THORNTON it au., 



Ti. 



NAZAIRE TRUDBL, 



ApriuiTH i 



IHTIIlfe. 



Jtoft :— Qua la partie pounoiTi* an born^g* Hfa coadamnia 4 payar laula toaa laa flraiada 
Taction, aoDobtUat ta d6olar«Uon ^u'alla aat pHta 4 boraar auivaat I'ordra da 
la bour. I » . 

Naiaire Trude] afait fait protealer l«s D«I1m. Thornton, par Mtre. P. 
Ilobillard, notuire, le 26 aoQit 1883, qui^tait un dimanoho, "d'avoir 4 aa 
" trouver aur lea lieuz, oe jourd'hui m6va% ou par proourenr dudmant autoria^, 
" k une heare de I'aprds-inidi ot d'upportir et d'exhibar leara titrea at dooamenta 
" pouvant aider 4 4tabltr lea dimensions et limitea de leura propri<t4a " aitutfes 
duns la ville de Nicolet ; 

Lea oppelaatoK, gardorcnt le ailenoe sur oette notification, qa'ellea na consi- 
d^rdront p|f eopQie a^riouae ; elles fureut popraaiTiea, en bomage, devant la 
Cour Supt^ricu'i^, ai^j^nt auz T rois-Biviires, aana d^fendre k I'aotion, elles 
r^pondirent ocimine 'ABit : 

" Les djjtes d^^nderesses cii oette oauM diJolarent par lea pr^Mutes, bin 
" prfites & fuire le bomage de leur heritage d'aveo oelai du demandaur, uen- 
" lioDiiv daofl Qon nction, d'npris lea ordrca de ceite honorable Cour ;" 

L'iiitiiiKi pluida la ouutie au nitrite, aans avoir iii inaerite aur le r61f da droit 
pour uudition finale au nitrite ; 

Lu Cour Inli^ricuie a rendu, Iq 16 aepteiubre 188S; le jugement auivaBt : 

La Cour apris avoir cntendu lea partiea par leura avooata ear la motion da 
doniandeur demandant que le rupport de I'arpentour Barnard prodait en eetta 
oaaM le Heiie juin dernier aoit homologu^ et ansai an m^rite de la demands, 
examine la procedure, pidoes produitea, la preuve et aar le tout avoir d<lib<rd ; 

Consid^rant quo la procedure de I'arpenteur Barnard qui a fait le bomage 
dea heritages dea partien en cette oause eat r<igulier ; 

ConsidC-rant au inerite de 1)^ deiuande que le dit demaiideur u'a paa fait la 
preuve dea donimagea^'fl r^lamo. r 

Conaid^rant que le dit demaudeur, avaat d'inajtituer, la present* aetion, a 
reqdis les dites ddfendereases de procider a I'amicUtU au bornagtiJeM hiritagu 
dicritt en la didaratton en cette caute. Tx 9 

Homologue le procds-verbal de bornage fait par rarpenteur^Bajnara et pro- 
dait en cette oaase le acizi^tne jour de juin dernier, declare en cons^qaenoe que 
les bornea pos^s par le dit arpenteur 4 la profondeur du terrain jdu daoiandeur 
nuz «ndroita tndiquds au dirpraceB-verbi^ ot marques C"Gt t^Vplan Aiit pai^ 



,.4_ ^ , 



V 






COUR DU BANC DE LA KBINB, 1886. 



20.1 



lo dit arpenteuir et produil to (iettooaoM. oarqasnt at d^torminant U ligne de DUm. B. M. 
diviiion entre lo tarrain du dit demandeur d^orit an U d^olantion ao oatta oauM '''''*»;"J»n»»*I 
ct celjii dfs d^ffluderaaaaa auaai ddorit en la declaration. N.Vniaal.' 

Ordonna que ehaqua, p^tia aupportera moiti^ de toua lea ftnia du dit arpentaur 
J oompria 1^ d^boura^s, le coOt du dit plan et g<n^ralement de toua lea fVala du 
dit bornage ; . * 

Kt oondamne lea ditea d^rendorawea aux diptn$ de I'aetion du demandtur, 
Hauf lea dita fVa^a de bornaga dont chaque partie devra auppo(ler una moititf 
oonime auadit, detquela ddpena d'aotion diatraotion eat aocordtf^i Mtre. P. A. 
Boudreault, procufeur du dit demandeur. 

Lea appelanta rejjr^iMntdrent i. la Cour d'Appel Tinjustiee d'<H;re condamn<<ea 4 
payer lea firaia de faction quand la juriaprudenoe avait jugd diff^remment daoa 
touted lea Coura de jjuatioe, et eitdrent k I'appui do leura pr^tentiona : , 
I vol. ddoiaipna d« la Cour d'Apel. Page 68 LoiHelle va Paradia 
Jngonient de la Coiir de R^viBion, No. 109, King va. Hayden. 
Caram loa lion, jugea Stuart, Caaault et Caroo. 

31 Novembre 1882. 
Constd^rant quo lea demandeura pourauivent lo d^renduur en bornaga et oon< 
cluen^ «veo ddpena de I'aotion eontre lui. 'V- » 

^ Coniid^rant que le deSfendeur dtfolare par a& rdponae & cette action, qu'il a 
tonjoura M pr«t A bomor auimnt la loi ; qu'il n'a poa contests le droit dea 
demandeura de le pourauivre an bornape et qu'il n'a oooteat^ que la partie de 
leur demande par laquelle ila ooncluent aveo d^pena contre lui : 

Conmdirant que par la loi lee fraia de bomage aont oommuna et que oeaz du, 
iitige Bont ik la diaer^tion du tribunal loraqu'il y a conteatation ; 

Gonsid^rant qu'il n'y a rien an doaaier qui fuae voir que le d^fendeur devrait 
etrMondnmntf aeul 4 payor lea fVaia de Taction ; 

^onaidtfrant qu'il y a erreur dana le jugement rendu par la Cour Sup^rieure le 
7 juillet 19^2, quant k U oondamnation aeulement du d^ftttdear au payement 
dea frais ■'- ' ' ' "^ ;• 

Cetto Cour oaaae et annnlte le dit jugement et proc^dant |' rendrele jugement 
quo la dite Cour Sup^rienre aurait dft rendre, ordonne qne obaoune dea partiea 
en cette oauae paye la juste moiti< dea fhtia d'action et quo lea demandenn 
payent la jaste moitM dea fraia d'aotion et que lea demandeura payent ao d^fen- 
danr lea firaiade la Cour de R^Tiaion.'* 
M. lejuge Caaault Awanttisnt* : 

Par son jugement du 6 Wyrier 1886 la Cour d'Appel a confirm^ le suadit juge- 
ment avee d^pens Gontre lea appelantea en faveurde rintim^. 

♦ * ' , Jugement confirm^. 

Paoaud <& Cannon, prooureora des appelantes. * 

P. .A. ^otkZreauft, prooureurs de I'intimtf. 
(b. l. p.) 



^¥ 






.1^- 



'i*-.. 



804 



GOUR DU BANG OB LA RfiIN£. 1886. 



\ 



COUR DU BANC DK LA REINE, 1886. 

^ ' ■ ■ 

* Eh Ai>pBL. 

MONTREAL, 2T JANVIER 1884. 

Coram SiB A; A. Dobiom, 0. J;, Tbssibb, Raii8At, Crom & Bauolby, J J. 

ROBERT RVAN8 IT At. - 



i 



(.Viftndiuri «n Cour If^irwtrt,) 

APtit4ii,w; 



««. 



NAPOLEON MONETTB, 

- - - (DtmiMdtuT *n Cowr Itrfirimn,) 

laTiMi. 
Quution dt rupontabiliU—MaUftt et mphyit—art. 1054 C. (C 

.Le jogement dont «sk appel • iStd rendu par U Gourde Revision (Sioottc, Tor- 
ranoeand Loranger J.J.) le 31 Janvier 1885. ■ 

II se lit oomme suit : i , / . 

" La'Gour, v^x^n avoir entendu lea partiea par leura avbeats reapeotifs, sur U 
demande da demandeur pour r^viaion da jagement rendu pnr la Gour Sup^ri- 
eure de oe diatriot, en la pr^aente oaoae, le hoit de julllet mil-buit-oeDt-quatre- 
vingt-quatre, examine le doiaier de 1» procedure dana la dite eauae, et pleine- 
ment d^liMrd : ^ ^ 

Gonaid^rant, en fait, que ledeax novdlbre tnil-huit-oent-quatre-vingi-trois, le 
demandeur tmvaillant oommoJMirWalier k dea travauzoommand^ paries d6fcn- 
deura, pour et dana unc bfitiaae qu*^^ faiaaient cbnatruire, a ^t^ blesa^ par una 
brique tomb6e aur sa tfite par le 'fait d'autrca travailloura eoyploy^s par lea 
d^fisDdonre; 

ConaidJrant, en fait, que le demandeur a 6\A ronda incapable, pendant plusi- 
curs mois, parlea blessurea qui lai furent alora inlBig^es, de vaquer k son travail 
ordinaire et de pourvoir ao aoatien de la fomijle, et qu'il a eouffert un dommage 
considerable \ I ^ *• 

Gonsid^rant que los thivauz ainai oommaodi^B par lea d^rendeara ^taient pour 
leur utility et profit, et dont le ooOt etait pajd ]Mit euz ; 

Consid^rant que , le travail fait par le demandeur ^tait chose connue par lea 
derendeurs eC leura pr^posi&i et autres travaiileura, comme devant ae faire i 
rint^rieur de.leur obnatruotion et avco totito la promptitude possible ; 

Gonsid^rant quo los d^fendeura ^talent tenua de preparer etr^ler lean autres 
travauz de manidre i garitntir protection et a&ret^ aa demandeur ainsi em- 
ploj^ jk faire un travail d'urgepoe command^ par lea ddfendeurs ; 

GoDsid^^imt que le demandeur faisait an travail de oreusage dana le sol, qui 
] empSchuiire voir ce qui pouvait fitre^fait aa-dessus de aa tite ; et qu'il avait 
droit de obpipter que le mattre et oeuz qui le repr^ntaient donneraient tela 
ordrea qpe rMnis pour qoe le demandeur ne fut paa expose 4 <tre ^craa^, ou 



iRomnriSft rfiiidn dcs tnavaoz qa'on pOuvaitluiroin-deaaua de aa tit^ 



V, 



VP"^ y 



• CQUR J)U BANC DB LA RRINB, 1886. ^ 2O6 

• ocr •••l.unce pour lo tr.,.il ..Is.i "^ ^ ^'" •*" **" 'PP«'<« * do«>- 

Cooiiddrmt que lea d<srendeun n'nntite. n-i. 1. 
prtmunfr le dom,„deur oootre I ^11^. r P'^*"*'""" °"«o— !«. pour 

. .noule et met de cd.d li dit juge.e du huU 7u Zfl , k ? ^ ''""""''"" ' 
quatre. at proo^d.nt A reodre celui qua t drCol 8 ■»•'»'"" "^•'^'"tr-vingt. 
dun. I'eapice ; eonda„.„e lo. S^ . dlnde„ ' S?h ?"'^"'"'? *""'* ^"^ "»'«''* 
mandeurUausdite «>mnic de del l?tZ ^ T"* * ^"^^^ ""'''» ^- 
«cr do cejour .t lea ddpel lut de iH^o 'Tn? '1'' *''' '"^^'^^ * «>"P- 

Le. appelan.. ont plaids 4 oetto actioo : lo p.'r une d^JndgS gt/rale .t 
2o par una e,oap,.oD invoqu.nt I. ndgligonoo eontributivo ^ ' 

Voioi lea faita : 
JZrT^''T ^"^ " <"^'-"'" » <« ort« J. Mr. I«Mg. Mrtil .«. . 



R 

.V. 



\5 



> Brana ' 
♦•.; I, 



X 






'■ V •!-. 



'/- 



i-*^ 



• V 



coi/b du banc dk ti fdufK, iim. 




«trliii (Mr^Mt dkiui l'inl4ri«or d* la bAliiM. CJpqndMMol qu'il y tvail dangtr, 
vfi qu«daio«vr!«ntniTtilUttntiurlfltoit, il oIwiHIm l«o(pir*-Bi«ltr«d« trtvtui 
dM •pp«l«oU, mais n'cD troavant «uoun,41 Miiittiia lnlflli^Bi* aui ouTricra d« 
n« pM travaill^ au-daMua d« la (£U d« rtoUm^. Lh ouvriura n« flraut tuouoa 
atttntknai 4 am •▼•rtiMtncifti •! rtfaairant dta'^loignar Kobinaoa, afln dVfiUr 
toat aocfdNit, pla^ja k oot< da rin^im^ un n9miu4 William Kiiowland poor att^' ' 
Taillar 4 oa qu'auoun aooid^ot n'arrifa. 

L'iatlnl travailU 4 eat androit 4 partir da Mpl hauraa du m%\^§kiJ^'i 
aoTiroa onta haaraa da I'avaot-midi. \ || 

Aprta ravertiaaament donD^ par Ilobinton, avartiatoment <uiK|*'^i^' 
appalanta afaient n(u»6 d'^ooutar, I'an d'auz laiam ^■>^|m'V)flf^*V 4*' 
paaaa antra Knowland at rintimtf. ^^ ^^* 

L'on daa oufriara daa appalaota tftant daaoaod v dttjIHpor oharohar la mar- 
taau, Knowland lui dit : "you havt alrtudy kitttaaman in thU hu%ldinji,%t 
mu$t b4 tnough-:" Ilf r^poadiraot qu'il o'j aurait plua d* d*ogar qu'Ua allaient 
fkira attaotiou. » t' < 

Qual^ua tempa apria oela, I'un ^ea mflmaa onVriara paaaant aii>daaBua da. la 
tfita da damaadaur, fit tomber una briqua qui attaignit I'iotiib^f 4 la tite at le 
bleaaa ai griifamant qu'il perdit cooDaiaaanoa at raata aix tnoia malada. 

Voil4 an HSaumtf tona lea faita da la oauaa, at de 14 I'aatiQP. 

En r^aumS rintinitf dit : ^ ^ 

YouMms raquia la demandaur^intiintf ou am patrona d« tranillar pcyir Tout. 

^QMMPm o^ligtf da preparer laa liedx oii da?aiaot aa nira laa trftaui d« 
tnaoiwa 4 laa randra aana danger. . - <^ . "I 

Voa amploj^a out relW da prendre lea pl^autiona quS^qoua tear avona indi- 
qu^, tout on noua aaaurant qu'ila le feraieot. 

Par leur faute ila nous ont oaua^ laa torts at dommagea que ^oita avona eaauj^i; 
«t Tona an £teB reaponsablaa. "^ 1 - 

,Quant au chiffre dea domniages, lea responaabilitda ^tant'adiiiiiea ila aont plus 
que prouv^ et sur le tout noua aouniettous humblcmvnt que le jugeiaent doot 
oat appel dpit 6tre oonfirutf. ^^ 

Les Son. Jugea Ramtay & Cro$$, diastdanta. 



A. MiU, avocat dea appel 
Ouitnet, Corntillier tt La^ 




Nntim^. 



Jugeuiant confirme. 




_*. 



# 



tB= 



IK 



^ 



« 



X^r I 




.i 



UR DU^BANC DK L4 KiSlNK, \m. 



\. 



r- 



wr 



-T* 



4ano dr la rjeinb. '\m- m 

, MOMfMIAf., MJVtH, !•■«. t 

^^ Raiwat, ClOfi, Baw, J.J. 



i' 
w 




§ THROAMADUNfiCirfC RAILWAY COM^ANr, 

. -'.. . : t ' - .^ . . *"•""-' 

J«»8RPH OOTRTTK,' 

Ihrnmagf cautU ptf^MnijUjtfiet dw. ,mph^4[m^ compagnU ^ eAiiti 

^ Lo jugentnt d« U Cour I^ftrirar. «xpoM !«• f.iu. U m lit oomaaliit : 

Atto0duqatUd.in,nd«ur .lU^ut qu .y.«t <(u$ v«r. U d«ui juin dwiilw, 
«ng«g« pir U d^rfiid«r«M pour tlltr trtftilUr miiiiii« J<NirMlitr, A raiton d'aiii 
piutr. «td«nil« par jour, tu ebfinia da ftr quf U diu oompujoj. f.b.it ooo- 
•tru.r., lur I. ligoe da I. M.nUwun, d.nt It ProTinw d'OnUcio; il fut tm*- 
portd par U dit« d^fendcrMM k •nviron troia etnts miHM plot ^0 qu'Otfaiwa 
oA on l« at moot«r «tm ^'autre* bomuiaa aur un «har d^oouvMl at oharg« da 
piioea de boia ; que oe ohar «Uat trop aharg<$, at laa piquaU at l«a li«oa qui 
rauatiaot laa ditM piAoaa d« boia o'^tant paa uan forU, t«a ditaa piAoaa 
tonib*r»nt *»ao pluiiaura hottimaa, antra antrwi la dftnandaur ; que iH»lui^i fut 
biaaatf a«rieuaaniant at randu ihoapabia da travaillar fwndant plosleura UKwa, at 
qu-il • jmt auite da oot aoaidoot, oaui^ par la fauea at la o^gligaoM da' 1» 
ddrandaroMw, dprouT^ daa dommagaa qu'il aathna i quanta oenu piaatraa. at aa% 
r<oUma da la d^fandareaM. r -. 1 

Attflnduque fa ddrandereasa a plaM< qua. I'aooident 4ltit da aanleneut i U ' 
n<5glig*DcaatAnmpru^oaduderaandeurqul8'<taifc pkf>i dana una poaltion 
dangarauw oontre laa awrtisaeroaati dea employ^* da la dUfenJereaaa. 

Oonaid<Sr«ot que ]« damtndaar a prouTtf laa all^Hioa eaaaatiall^a da at 

demandfl, qu'il aa trouvait lora da raooident, daoa la o«dltion d'un paaaagar 

^ ordinaire, et ood d^oa <>ell« d'un aarritaur da la oompa^ie: oa qui appmtt - 

aurtoat par la fait qua la dita oompagnie daf ait 'r^ir aur aapgagea futuraa la priz 

de Bon paaaage ; qua la dita d^Sfaodaraaae davkit, en ooDiiqtt«no«, vaillar A k 

•ftret^du damandaur plua Boignauaoment qa'ell^yei'* fait, .tqu'ella cat raapoD-^ 
iabladuditaocldeotetd^aeaauitea. i','* /H 

Oonaidfrant que la damandanr a prouv<$ qu'U »' Muffert iaa dommagaa pour 1 

un montant da daui oont^ix piaatrea tant pour la tempa qu'U a pardu que pour 

*» aooffranoea qu'il a ^prout^ea par auite du dit aooidjBDt. ^ ' ^ 

^ BAfoie l« plaidojar da la d<Srenderaaae, at oondamDa iatt^^derniAre 4 payer > * 

^11 damandaur h dite aomm« de deux cent^ix piaatiM, afeo iiat<$r«t de oe jour. , 

^U«d<pe|i..diatr.il9 4Meaaleui.Lon?prtetDafld,.Too«Ud.demaDdeur. / Y 

Voici let notaa Inaa par le juga Miffliaean en fendaptjugement. ' ^ 







\,'?= 






a nMuiiii mraomtiHiei dontre I» t'ompaftite da Pi»aaelDiii^^ 



,:^i 



■^--■-^'' -^f^m.^ ^ 




m' 



•:*,. 



208 



r 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINB, 1886. 



V J 



I 
1/' 



•t.»V 



•J^J- ?u^BW?« out po<ir origino le mdme accident. ■ Trudpl reclame $500.00 ; TrembUy, 

-^''^'*: 11601,00 ; Goyette, $400.00 ; Payette, $300.0d. 
J. G)07ftt«^T Ces oausea ne prdseotent pu la diffioulld iju'ont pr^nt^ grand nombro 
d'autrea causes centre laoompagnie pour la/'preuve des engagements et do 
I'agence. Ici, lea faits sont tr(^a simples etf peavent se rdsumer en trds pen de 
mots. ?:- ■ ~ 

Dans lea derniera jours de mal ou le pn4aier juin 1884, quatre-vingts 4 cent 
ouvriers epga^s par un nomm^ Thotmi^on, partirent d'Hochelaga "poor aller 
traVuiller sur la ligne en voie de oonstru/tion de la d^fonderessej la Compagnie 
de ohemin de fer du Paoifique Canad/en,tila(4j)& region otLBection dite : " au 
nord da Lao Sup^rjeur." Arrives A " Saflfcary^unction," ils laiasdrent le 
convoi roller et la llgne r^guliW pour pFendre un oonvoi de oonstruotion, 
" Con$ttuetion TVatn," nni les ma^ait sur les lieux oi^ ils devaient travailler. 
les uns comme charpentiers, et les autres, le plus grand nombre comme simples 
journaliers ou oavriers teorassiers / les - Ahay^cntiers ^taient engages 4 $2.00 par 
joar et les autres 4 $1.60. Ce /Con$truclLn Train 4tait o<^mpoe« de la loco* 
motiTO, de quelques obars j»fate«-/orm««/charg48 de bois oaiU et de lisses, de 
que)qne8.6ox-car« charges d'a^imauz, et de provisions, et d'un ou deux vans, 
Ij^aigtedo passagets, des em(>loy^s e't aussi de quelques effetsv An diredes 
ideii^andears, ils aur%ient, enz et leurs oompagnohs, refu ordre f^o Thompson de 
fl'einbarqu^ sur un de- ces chars plate-formes charges de bois oarrrf ; ce char se 
■etait trovT^ trop Qharg^ ; le train partit et, & 3 ou 4 ipiilles de Sudbury, en 
passant aur un petit pont en bois,^ lis piquets trop faiblesqui^ tenaient le boisdeoe 
char, o^ddrent et piddes de bois et hommes tomblrent k bin pdle-mdle ; oinq des 
hommes regurent en tombant des blessures plus ou moins graves; quatre de 
ces cinq sont )es demandeurs ; le oinquidme, Thomas Entresell, n'a pas poursuivi i 
il est , M4 au bureau do la Compagnie, qui a oonsenti a rdgl^r & I'amiable aveo 
lui' et lui a donntf $60.00. II ^tiiit blessd moins gravcment que les autres. 

I/BS demandeurs attrifouent bes accidents k la n^Iigencik de la dtffendcresse, 
qui aurait da, <'toujours suivant euz,"^mettrc k leur disposition an meilleur 
char ou da moins entourer oolj|i-li de pi4Bicts asses, forts pour garder aft charge 
de bois et empdcher I'accident dont ils ont souSSert. 

La d^fenderesse r^pond qu'elle n'est pas respbnsable et que si les demandeurs 
ont r^ellement ^prouv^ les dommages mentlonn^s 4 leur action, o'est leur faute 
ieuzet non pas la menne ; qu'elle avail des ohars sdrs 4 leur disposition ; 
-j[u'elltjeur a d^fendu d'embarquor-dans^elai qa'ils eni ohoisi et ear leqn f\ ih 
sent months, malgriTlesavef tissoments de ses jttiploy^ et agents ; qu'enfin il y 
a responsabilite contributive de leur part ik ejix, les demandeurs, et que dn reste, 
la demanderesse n'oi>t pas responsable des accidents causes auz demandeors par 
leurs compagnons de travail co-i0ori(»iien. 

Quelques mots maintenant de la preuve : vc^ons d'abord comment raooident 
est arrW6. Le t^moin F^liz Guay dit : m Les ohjirs se trouvafent aur un 
" petit iruMttU qui n'^tait pas bien haut ; le char a paehi quand oh est venu 
" i embUiuS^.sur ce ttiikuU] h track, la ligna n'^tait pas bien belle, lohquele 
-iljdtar,af|>eneh^^4e-boiajqai se. trouvait attr la <hw sW^B<p>rtr«^le^^p^q ^ ^et « iw ^ 
"■ on|oaa8^,ge soppose et......"<«t le bois et lea hommes sont tomb^s. Aithar 



■\\i 



">^. 



Hi' 



. .*A 






CO UR DD BANC DE LA RKINE, 1886. 



209 



Beardsell donne une venioo plus expliquee : •• Th« oar, dit-il, was not properly Th« 6. P. R. 

iticked ; thore wcr« only^ij sticks in the car and no braces, and the scantling "''"^y 0«. 

" was only three by four, and the road was very bod, and the lumber fell off and ^- Ooytttfc 

"the men were thrown oflF with the lumber That b the way the accident 

" happened." 

Les demandeura et lours oompagnons, fait capital 4 noter, payaioi^ A la d^fen- 
deresse lean frais de passage sur les voitures ou oonfbis de U difenderesse- 
Elle <5toit tenue, cons^quemment, de les>voiturer en BttrctiJ, avec prudence et 
sans les exposer au danger. 

La d^fenderesse a-t^slle agi avec tout le soin fl<5cessaire ? Estnjlle responsable 
de ^accident arriv* ? Doit-elle payer les dommages <prouv^s par les demandeara ? ' ' 1 

lo Ht 4^botd, il n'y a pas lieu k I'applioation du principe invoqu^ par la 

d<ffendew«»^aster not liable to servant " et que, nous trouvons clairement 

ei^8« dans « Codey, on Torts," cite pa|r elle, lors de I'audition de la cause : 

^ General rule : maker not liable to servant. The rule Is now well settled that, 

' in general, when atservant in the execution of his master's business receives 

' an injury which bei falls from one of the risks Incident to the business, he 

cannot hold the master responsible, but must bear the consequences himsdf. 

" The reason most generally assigned for this rule is that the servant, irhen he * 

" engages fbr employment, does^ib in view of all the hagardh, and that he and 

"his employer, when making their negociations, fixing the teVms and agreeing 

« upon the compensation that shall be paid to him, must have contemplated 

'"^°^*"'**^'"8" >«»P<>'»*'»' J>e«ring on their Btipulatiops. As the servant ' 

'^b«n knows that he will be exposed to the incidental risk he must be supposed 

" to have contracted that as between himself and the master lie would run this 

,^' risk"— (Page 541.) 

^ n est impossible d'appliquer ce principe au cas actual : o'est de la demidre 
^vi^enoe. Si les demandeurs avaient 6t6 H leur ouviage, travaillant au pic ou i 
/la hache, qu'en travaillant ainsi, un compagnon inhabileen aurait blesstf ua 
gr^ivement en laissant ^ohapper sa hache ou son pic, c'<5tait pr^ksis^ment le cas 
^e bpplioation du principe qu'on vient de lire ; la diSfenderesso n'eftt jamais M 
appel^ 4 payer des dommages i ces employes malheureux, viotimes de l'employ6 
inhabUe, ou d'autres accidents da mSme genre prtfvus lors de reogagement. 

2o Gettc position prise par la dtffenderesse n*4teit godre tenable. Elle en a 
«hMnuneilu8jkii8iljle^daBs^oirtecond^oiiiV^^ _ 

tnbutive qu la rcsponsabilit^ commune des demandeurs. Voyons d'abord le 
piinei^ tel que pos<S dans « Cooley, on Torts, p. 674, oit6 par la ddtbnderesse 
ilen^igement. 
" The general rule ^f contributory negligenoe : " 

" Regarding the ease of « negligent injury the general result of the autho- 
^' nties aeema to be that if the pl«intiff or the party injured by the exercise of 
" ordinary oare under the eireumsUnees, might h|ve avoided the conseqaenoea 

", ?f,^!.^!^«'^y' °'*^''yT'.^°* '^''^ '^°*' ^'^ *"^ " '>°' of mPtnal fault and 
" thn la w w ilU«UWHi»a<rn l l tlm q o nse qu e n cc s upon t he ae fendantTBorwiinr — ' 
' attempt any apportionment thereof." 



7. 







\-l 


■'1 



1 



i 



'T../ 



210 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINB, 1886. 



RaHw ' ^c*' ^*""*'* "•'• eniuite un ns de negligence oontributiro k propoe de ooUilioa 

,t ' de Tuueaux oii le demandeur » droit de r^luner ou noo, luivant le degr< de 1« 

*J. Gojettc. f^ute puis il ajoute : « More negligence or want of ordinary care and caution 

" would not, however, diaentitle him (plaintiff) to recover, vnleaa it were aucli 

" that bat for that negligence, a want of ordinary care and caution the mial'or- 

" tune could not have happened, nor if the defendant might, by the exercise of 

" care on his part, have avoided the oonsequenoes of the neglect, or carelessness 

^oftheplaintiflf:" 

W J'sime mieux,' sur ces questions de responsabilitd, lea termes plus olairs et plus 
pr^is du Droit Franf ais, de notre .droit. Mais il fliut admettre que sur le 
prinoipe fondanienul il y a peu de diffeSrence entre la legislation anglaise et notre 
droit. -» 

Arrivons mainten,ant ti la question definitive: la preuve, envisagee i la 
luiQidre deces prineipes, exondret-elle Ja defenderesse ? La Courne le oroit 
pas. La preuve mdme de la defenderesse, en suppoeant cw'il n'y en aurait paa 
4'aatre, ne 8u£Brait pas pour I'exonerer de tout blfine.^ j^t^ 

Lee employes de la defenderesse, agents de Btation|!^t'|^ et conduoteurs do 
trains, viennent jurer qu'ila ont va la gang — lea ^t^lt||^^ue Thompson oon- 
diiisfut aux travaux — mooter dans le char eu question, qU'ils leur ont dit de n'y 
pas mooter et d'aller se mettre sur d'autres chars ; I'un d'eux dit en cour qu'il 
eroyait qu'il y avait danger sur ce char, mais il avoue, en transquestion, qu'il n'a 
pas juge ^ propoa d'avertir la gang,r-lea 40 a 60 ouvriers qui prenaient passage 
sur ce char plate-forme — qu'il y avait du danger & faire le thget sur oe char ; 
une fois le train mis en mouvement, on a encore voulu, pour fabiliter la dircula- 
tion des employes sur leconvoi^derung^rleshommes qui se trouvaient nur ce 
ehar pai-tioujier aveo les demandeurs, mais trds peu obeirent et I'un de ces 
employes a I'air de trouver qa tout naturel, parce que les horomes etaient mieux 
sur ce char, se trouvaient mieux asais et plus loin dea flammecbes'de la locomo- 
tive. 

C'est ]k toute la preuve clejiittication de la tU/enderetie, qui est loin d'etre 
suflisante. Ces hoiiimes qui s'en allaient travailler pour elle, euient ses passa- 
gers ; elle les faisait payer, eUe devait les loaer dans des chars sars, chars plate- 
formes ou autt-es ; s'il y avait danger, elle deyai't les en avertir et meme les 
emp€cher de aionter sur ce char ou les en faire deacendre. II y a des oircon- 

^ stances, ressortant de la preuve des demundeurs qui expliqa^t parfaitement 

* '«ur^biiduite-«fc4e«^lave de toute ne^ligencr^sonlnbluive^ Gesgftnsniontaienl 

avec Thompson, qui les avait engages it Hoclielaga et qui les conduisait sur los 

lieux de leurs travaux, oH il devait les mettre direotement sods le contiole de la 

/ compagnie defenderesse ; ilssesont aocoutumes i regarder oet homme comme 

r^ent de la defenderesse et il est en preuve que c'cst lui qui leur a dit de 

!, monter sur ce char ; les quatre demandeurset presque tons oeux qui etaient sur 

I le char a'ont pas entendu les observations des employes de la oompagnie. 

Sur le tout, la Cour croit done que la defenderesse aarait mieux fait de payer 
j ■' les deinandenrs, comme elle avait paye Entrasell. 
■ ■ I Let domm*gcariideU8n4tf8 par les demandeurs soat nedere^ i ila denuuident 



'»(4 



^ 



COUR DU BANC DK LA RBINE, 1886. 



211 



irTu« rr'r *^^ ^" •* P"" .ooflr.no«.ndurM .tr<.ervent Th,o.P. A 
ZJTT^ ^V "~" •" •" **• P««P««»oe d*. blewure. «t de plus de «"":? ^o. 

<ioinin.g«i rtels •! de CM demwidet de rtwrrei de reoouw. 

ou 8 ootobre 1884, et «ne yuigtoine de piMtres pour «,uffr.noes endur<e.. 

4AJU** T : ^ A^, ^ Jugement confirm^. 

Abbott, Tau 4 Abbott, troette de r.ppeUnt. 

Lonqpri tt David, aToeata de I'mUmtf. 

.. e ■ > . ■ ■ ■ ■ . 

'- COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. „^ 

(APPBAt SiDB.} 
MONTREAL, JTth MAY, 1886. * , 

^SiaA.A.Do,uoN,C.J..MoNK, J..RAM8AY, J.,Cho»8, J..„d ' ' 

y "^ ■ Babt, J, 

JAMBS GUBST, 



X^laintitrin the CouU ielow'S * 

*"■* APMtLAMT; 

JAMBS M. D0U0LA8, -^T 

■: iDe/tndantkHtheCoiirlbtlofe,) 

l!? "'f "^ "-^ " ?»««'»'y 0/ ,htrry bought by ,ample, on the 
ground^hat the wvne delivered um not the v>ine bought~Jtea,onable dili- 
<?«.« to\M»titute,uchan action (art. 1630 C. a)-Viee redhibimire- 
JJe/ectt which are apparent (art. 1623 C. C.) 
The jud^mey of the Court below (Mathieu, J.) read ae follows .— > 
Attendu queW sept. 1881 le ddfendeur vendit sdr ^hantilloa^ I'cntre- 
m.» d un oourtieV «u demandeur, une oertaine quantity de vin eherry. provenant 
de la oiaaufactureV Laoave A Cie.. Caddse. Bspagne, pour le prix de mull " 
lequel m fttt Im^ au demandeur par le d^fendeur rers le 16 et 17 sepriSSll 
et pay^ le 26 sept 1881. par «o billet dat. du 20 «,pt. 1881. . quatT^f if 

1. ^*,*^°^" ^"''Ji JggSfldear par jioiuiotion iofcntjfe le 14 juin 1883 demaude 
^n^B^cette ven.e, aliquant qu,,eo vin n'^tait pas sembfable .ux Z„ 
Ullons & lu. ,em.8 par le difendenr ; mais qu'U <5tait d'une quality inftri^uTL 
.n.prop« «m ^numerce et qu'il avait «,« ftbifitf, et r6,lame dl difendeur. 1. di^ 

J.0. 1882. date de I'^h^aneedu billet, plu. les droits de douane pa,5. pir't 
demandeur, .ur ce vin. et une somme de flO.OOO pour domm^i Z lai 
jouffert. et r^ultant de la vente de ce vin. le demandeuV oiTnmt deTmeuL u 
^ a quanth. dOin qu^ lui ^uit en main, et de lui donner ^^^ 
acheteur ^ «''»*« ^•»<'« «* qi" nelui ..«it par ,«,toy*p.rie. 



. -^ . • 






212 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 

'■ ^iP-^ • ■ — A 1 ! 



^•^ J"«" Attendu que le d^fendeur, a plaidd k oette aotion, d'abord par une dtifense en 

4.1I.Doug!a8. droi^, all^ant que I'aetion dn demandenr 6fMtmtA foni6e parce que le deftian- 

deur, ne pouvait obtenir la r^siliatioo da li^ vente d'une partie seulement de oe 

Tin ; mais.qu'il aurait dd denande/la rdsiliation da tout et offrir de remettre 

/ itout le dit via. / V 

Attendu que par jugement de oette Cour en date du 28 noTombre 1883 il a 
6t6 ordonn^ prcuve avant faire^roit sur la dite dd/enMe en droit : 

Consideraut que lorsque la oliose vendue ne forme pas an seal tout, de mani^re 

qu'oA n'eat pas achet4 I'une pana I'aatre, le vice redhibitoire qui infeote I'une 

des choseB, donne lieu i. la r^siliation pour le tout, mais que lorsque lea dhoaes 

aont ind<Sp«ndantea lea unos des autrea la redhibition n'a lieu que poor celles qui 

" float infect^es de ce vie^: 

— Considdrant qu'il r^^alte de la preave^o'ane oertaine quantity do vin vendue' 

pouvait dtre d'une quality infigiieare-aoz ^cbantillons, tandia que I'autre partie 

aiiraitpa 6tre sem^able, et que sous lea oirponstanoes la dite defense en droit 

4^t mal fond^, a^tenvoy^ et renvoie la dite d<Sfense en droit aveo^^pena dia- 

' traits 4 Mtre McGord, avocat da demandenr. 

Attendu que/le d^fendear a aaasi plaids que le demandeum'a pas intents 
- eon action ave9 diligence raisonnabla ei que I'fl vin en questioa £tatt semblable 
auz 4chantillons, et qu'avant et lors'de la vente, le demandenr, avait examine le 
dit via et I'^ait acwept^ et eb avait pay^ le priz. 

''' Consid4ran£ que ledtauandeur, n'a. pas intents son action avec une diligence 
raisbnnable, et que paifl'artiole 1630 du^Code Civil Taction redhibitoire doit ^tre 
intent^e aveo diligent raisonnable ; 

Consid^rant quale demandenr, o'a pas prouv^ que le vin en question n'^ta it 
pas semblable auz ^ohantillons et que o'^tait i. luf k faire cette prec^ve, et que 
flans les ventes de marohandises sdr ^bantillons l^ r^iliation de la vente ne pent 
^tre demand^e par I'acheteur lorsqae la marehaQ^ise eat conforme it I'^obantilion 
et que d^aillears les ^chantiUons tftantrest^ pendant qaelqae temps avaat le 
"^maaoh^ entre lea mains de I'aohetear, oelai-oi eat pa en faire I'aoalvse et con- 
a^terparoemoyenle d^fautdela marohandiae; i 

• CoDsid^rant qu'il est proavd qae le vin en qaesUoo n'a pas iA6 falsifitf opmme 
Tajl^gue le demandenr. \ 

Consid^hint que le ^emandeur, a cztunintfetd^gaat^ levin en qlwetion avant 
«tlor8de lavanteetqaedans^toas lea eas, il aorait pa oppoaltrct les'i^oM doiniij-' 
'<., ilaaolkitpii^tre affeet^. 

l'irficIeT523^da Code Civil, le vendeai^n'est paa tena 



, j^iontidenmt^pe^mriirticie 

.|hb vioea apparenta et dont rachetear a pa lai-m6me connaltre I'eziatence ; 

Considirant qae le demandear n'a pas proav^ que le vb en qoestion f&t affeet< 
•d'aaoan vioe oaeh^ ao^iemps de la vente en question et qa« raehetcor eat tana/ 
de proaver que le yice dont il ae plaint eziatait aa moment de lia vente ; 

Obnsid^nnt qae Paction da dit demandear est'mal fondte at qap lei d^feose^ 
4a"^tffendear aont blen fondles. \ j ' / 

A maintena et maintient lea difeni^ da d^fendeur et a iteavoytf ek renvoie 
I' HC t ion dn dit dc m andei i r t t ver tl ^ tppna aiatrmita^ Mtm L. W. Bai^ a ^in^ 



<du d4fendear. 






^41 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



218 



* i» 



The reepondent rabmita th»t the ptmhaae in this eanae wts a oueof caveat JanwiOMit 

nptor, appellant having ^umined.tbe goods before he took delivery and ^lasj i. n^n.!... 

thoroughly satisfied therewith: he also having, after delivery of the goods, ' " ^ ...... 

given his note in settlement andjkaid the note at matujity. In snp|K>rt pf this 
I the respondent cite to the Court the following anthbritiee : 
I Delamarre and Le Potvin, VoL 5, No. 190, page 264, No. 192, page 265, 
No. page, 272. v , r-o . 

Maroade iol. 6, pages 293, 296. 

That the sale can only be set aside as a whole, Pothier, vent No. 217, No. ^ 

228 Benjamin on Sales, p. 351 to 369. * 

L.R.7Exp.26. 

Clough vs. The London and North Western Railway Company. 

It is also held by the Court of Cassation in the oose reported in the Journal 
de Palais 1872, page 632, referred to in the report of the case Lewis vs. Jeffrey. 

It 18 also carried out in the ease of Ross and Baker, judgment given in the 
■ Superior Court, Montreal-, and taken to-Review 3l8t October, 1871. 

Also in the case of Lapointe and Allard decided in the Superior Cowt io 
July, 1873. 

The.aotion as instituted being an action redhibitoire, must and should have . 

been brought with reasonable, diligence according to the nature of the defect ^ 

complained of and the usage of the trade at Montreal. 
In support of this the respondept cites the following authorities : " 

Civil Code, L.C. Art 1630; Pothier vent 230 and 231; Code Napoleon 

Article 1648. *^ 

Lewis vs. Jeffrey, 18 L. C. J. p. 182; Demers vs. Tainefcr, 5 Revue Legale, 
p. 104. ^ '' ■ : \ 

Delamarre vs. Le Poitvin, Droit Commercial, yol. 6, p. 264, 266, 269 and 270. 
Marcade vol. 6, page 294 (Note 6.) 
Pothier, vent No. 230. . 

Joseph vs. M&rrow, 4 L. C. J., p. 289, and authorities cited in the report. 
Clement vs.. Page, 1 Jurist, page 87, (Judgment of Smith, Mondelet and 
Chabot.) 

Veronnoau vs. Poupnrt, 21 L. e. J. 326. .^ ' 

Benjomin on Sales, para. 662, pages 635, and 644. -» 

Benjamin jio Sales, vol. 2, XibraryBdiUon, page 866, No. 977, Dalloi Juris- 
prudence gencrale vo. vice redhibitoire NoSr 83 and 169, 

Judgment confirmed. 
x)a»ia /?. JfcCordf, fo^appellant -^ l , s^ 

L. N. Benjaminyt^i respondent. ^'^^-^ 



■ V . ■ 



.L.-i:. 



4>. 



2U 



COURT OF QUREN'S BBNOH, 1886. 



J 



OOUIIT Of QUBHN'S BBNCH, 1886. 
' (appial in>i). ^■ 

MONTRBAL, tin MARCH, 18M. 

C«rmm DoBioN, C. J., Momt, Kamiiat, CfiOMr Babt, J.J. 

DAMB LUOY D. OOBNir BT AL„ * 

. ^ (VttUiuMrHH nuUitt d$ dttrltin tk$ Court htt»v), 

Appillamti 
' "• .,..,, \. 
ALEXIS BRUNBT, 
^ ^A4i*dieatairt, ConUilant in the Court btloiv,) 
THE HON. P. J. O. CHAUVEAD, 
_. ^Sktrif,C0nU»tantintheCoitrtb*lo»), 

RMPOITDniTI. 

HiLD :— When the iheritrB wl« Is not Mrrted oat Mtording to the eelxure the eraditon wn 
entitled to proceed <iiiM«Z/ttf<fa(tfer«. (Art.7UO.P.O.) 

' This ia an appeal fW>m a jadgment of the Saperior Coart at Montreal, ren- 
dered on the>29tli of November, 1884, by the Honorable Mr. Jastioe Taaohe- 
rean, which dismiaaed a petition en nuiliU de deertt presented by the present 
appellants, and maintained the oontestaUons thereof fyled by the present respon- 

The jadgment is as follows t-- 

La Ooor, aprds avoir entenda les d^fendenrs, reqndrants en Dnllit^ de d^rfit, 
i'adjadioataire A. Brnnet ot le sh^rif, rhonorabk P. J. O. ChaovMn, par leurs 
proeareors respectifs snr la reqnipte en nnlUt^ de d^At prodaite par les dits 
■d^fendeors et ear la contestation d'ioeire, examine la.proeMare, les.admiaiio|i8, et 
la preove, et toates les piioes da dossier, et snr le toot dtflib^rtf. 

Considtfrant que qaoiqae le jagement renda snr Taction ^^jnneipale en oette 
«aase'fbt en declaration d'hypothdqne, la eondamnation poftiM contre les dJfen- 
detirs devenait personnelle, et pore etsimple faate d'option et 4e d^laissement par 
«ax, dans la dtflai reqois, de rimmeable en cette caniB. 

CoDsid^rant qae les dits dcffendenrs ont n^ligfi de faire la dite option et n'ont 
pai deiaiss^ I'immeable dans le dit dtflai. / ^^ 

Cunsid^rant que rez^oution 4mise £tait oontre les bien^ personnel^ om dits 
det'endeurs et qae snr telle exteation les demandears ne pjavaient ftilre- saisir, 
«t le sb^rif ne ponvait prendre en ex^ation sar ohaqoe .d^fendear qae le droit 
qae la loi lai recodnaissait snr le dit immeable savoir, I'asafrait qaant 4 la 
d^fendrease Dam6 Lacy D. Oheney et la nae propriety qaant aax a^trea; que 
«ea droita aont diatinota et ai^parte et ont 4tA aipar^ment aaisia et nnonote-en 
vente aa moyen dn pablicationa reqaiaea, qae oooa<Sqaemmentla vente dea dita 
'droita immobiliera ponvait et devait r^galierement dtre faite par le dit ahtfrif 
a^partfment et diatinotement, oonformtfment 4 la dite aaiaie et les ditea annonoea. 

Maintient la oonteatation da dit adjadicataire A. Branet et eelle da ah€rif 
I'honorable P. J. 0. Chaaveaa, et renvoie et rejette la dite reqaSte en nallit^ de ' 
d^rat,<»vee d^pena eontre lea dita dtfendeara, diatraita A Maitrea Longprf A 






■V-. 



^■^::. 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BRNOH, 1886, 



-L 



216 



D»?l^ eU MkUto C. a. Vilboii, proeuraun du dit »dJudio«ttire eUu dit ihirif 
reflpooUv«nient. 

AppallanU ■ubmit tlat this Jadginent|,ia erroneona. 

Th« prenent proceeding !« under »rt. 714 C. P. C. 

The plaintiflPa hypotheoary action waa brought againat both uaufructuary and 
proprietora in torma of art. 2059 C. C. 

Whether the form of ooiidttinnation of the four peraoiia (uaufraotuary and 
propriotors) jointly waa a oorreot form ia not now io (|tteatioo. It muat be 
treated aa oorreot hero. Under it, in default of tUlmaement Mm. Davia waa 
liable for J and each child for J of the aura. The appollaatti aubmit, therefore, 
that the pluintiffri had not the right, nor hud tjje aheriff, to put up Mra. Davia' 
URufruot alone, aa he did, with the intention, 'ifjMjasibU, of satisfying hia writ in 
full thereout, and of reaurting to the intdreata of the proprietora only if that 
result waa not tfttainod. Vmh defendant was eqjially liable, and no one ahould 
be made, by any procedure, to pay the whoje. The debt waa one of their au(eur, 
charged on the property, and due by them a^ body, and the property ahould 
consequently have been aold aa one. 

The reapondenta reiterated the oaaerliU, and the Court below followed it, 
that uaufruct and nue proprUti are distinct thinin, and therefore must be sold 
aeparatoly. Appellanta do not deny tie firal part of thin statement, but they 
do deny the tequitur. They contend that there is n^iiig in the Inw to prevent 
wjoh interests from being aold together ; that it ia consUntly done ; that it will 
always produce a better price. 

DoRlON, C. J., aaid the majority of the Court were of opinion that the Bale 
waa irregalar, and the adjudication must be set aside. The aoparation of the 
usufruct from the ownership was improper apd not in accordance with law. ItJ 
was obvious that the not selling the whole together operated a prejudice to the, 
appellants. The property was aold for about one-half what would have been 
bid for it if the whole had been offered together. As the plainiiffn might hlure 
^iven a more definite description of the property seized, and the advertisement 
agreed with the seisure, the court was disposed to reverse the judgment without 
costs. 

Rambat J., concurred in the judgment, chiefly upon the ground that the 
property must be sold as it is seized. If the seiiure had been wade in detail. 
It sale in detail would have been perfectly 1^1. Bttt,wher<i the sale was not 
«arried out according to the seisur^^ tl|fi creditQir was entitled to come in and spy, 
you have no right to morsel the property. As to costs, a public officer who 
appeared in a case should not, ,%8 a general rule, be subjected to costs ; but a 
sheriff, when M comos into court, should take a position which will create as 
little costs as possible. Here the sheriff had filed a factum and gone through 
all the operations of a defendant. ;r 

Judgment reversed, without oostSi Baby^ J., dissenting. «• * 

A.^. AnHsoy, attorney for the appellants. / 

Longpri <fr David, for the Respondent Brnnet. 
I Ck$. A. Vilbqn, for the respondent Chauveau. 



Dam* L. D. 

Chaoajr et al. 

and 

A. Bruaet 




«sa.- 



2ie 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINB, 1869. 



eOUR DU BANC DK LA RifilNB, 1889. 

MONTRBAL, 3^ JANVIBft 1886. 

Coram Monk, TiaaiBR, Eaubay, Cross et Baby, JJ. 

LA OORPURATION DU OOUTB OYAUASRA, 

(R^potuhntt in Cour In/Meur*,) 
"'■-^^^ APPltiNTi; 



■T 



NARCISSI DUROCHBR, 



^(JUqu4ra»t «n Cour li\firiiuT*,) 

iMTIMft. 



vgU appKqu40 




ApfUtatum det arti. 032 et 810^. C. M.— ThiorU de la el 
aux diciiiont det Conuila Municipaux. 

Jveft :— Que lei fonctioni des eonieillen munioipauz loot k Is fois adminiatratirer, ligk*- 
latives et jadieiaires ; et que lea dicisiona renduea par eux en leur capacito 
Judiciaire permettent d'iuToquer & leur 6gard la th6or!e de I9 eboae Jugte. 

The appeal was from a judgment annulling a resolution of the county coyncil 
of Yamaska, which resolution rescinded a by-lnw of the municipal council of 
the parish of St. David. Certain proprietors petitioned the local council of St. 
David to be relieved from contributing to a road known os the Route and Jos. 
Pierre bridge, claiming that it was unnecessary, especially as far as they were 
concerned. Parent, N.P., was appointed superintendent to report on the subject, 
and his report was in the maia favorable to the pretensions of the petitioners. 
!^he council look the report into consideration, and, by the casting vote of the 
Mayor, the report was set aside as to its main provisions. The petitioners 
appealed to the council of the county of Yamaska, who reversed the decision of 
the local council, adopted the superintendent's report, and ordered Its execution. 
The by-law or procU-verbal remained in force about five mot^^s, when another 
petition was got up, alleging new facts. The local council took this petition into 
consideration and granted its xonclusions, setting aside the procU-verhal of 
Parent, and restoring the former contributors to the road and Pont St. Pierre. 
From this decision an appeal was again entered to the county council, who 
treated the decision of the local council ns over-ruling th^t of the county oouncil 
on the former petition. They accordingly maintained the appeal and set asid^ 
the proceedings of the local council with costs against the petitioners. From 
this decision the latter appealed to the Oiroait Court for the District of Biobe- 
lieu. The appeal was maintained and thfr proceedings of the county oouncil 
were cancelled. The appeal to tbia Court was from the latter decision. The 
county council ocged that the demand of the second petition, being In effeol^ t» 
set aside the decision of the county oouncil on the first petition, the matter fn 
dispute should be considered eho$e jvgte, and not susceptible of being renewed 
in this manner. On the other hand, the pefeitionera contended that there was » 
dear provision in articles 810 and 810 a, that every prodtHierbal In force may 
a t a ny Um e b e a m ended o r repeal e d by a n o t h elrproc ^ I■B«^ 6Q ^ on petiti o n 4>£-the- 



^^ 



OOUR DU BANC DE LA RKINK, 1869. 



21T 



ptrtiei interested ; that they were petitioning for the maintenenoe of a road ''• Curp«f». 
which had existed for over twenty yean, and which was atill used aa an ""?ij ."^ y 
important thoroughfare. " / , *^ 

" La Cour, aprds jvoir entendu etc. Duroeher. 

" Oonsid^rant qu'en verto de I'artiole 698 du Code Municipal, le requ«rant 
" ovnit droit d'adoptcr le procdd^ de pa prdnente requite en eaMation centre la, 
" rdpondante, et que, aur ce ohef, de mdrne quo sur tous lea autros y alMgutfs, la 
'* dita defense en droit eat mal fondle ; 
'* L'a rejot^ et rejetto avoc d^pena. 
"Etnufond: 

"Oonsid^rant quale conaeil de la ripondante, par sa resolution ou ordon- 
^'nancedontae plaint le requtfrant, adoptee i aa stance du acise mai dernier 
" (1884), et par laquelle, sur appel port< h oet effet, un certain rdglement 
" adopts par le Gonseil Municipal de la Paroisie de St. David, it, sa ae^aion da 
"sept avril prdcddcnt, ainsi quo tous proodd^s do dit conseil de paroisae, 4 sa 
•' dite stance du eept avril, amendant le procds-verbal de Louis Parent, en date 
^~^^' de I'ann^e prdc^dentc, concornant la route Joi. Pierre, ont iii oub/6», annul^a 
"et mis i n^ant, a violi la loi en proc^dant ik juger I'appol port<$ devant lui par 
" Lessard & al, eoptre flr^peau A al., sur le dit riglenient, sans instruira et 
•^ " entendre la cause, ainsi qu'U est r^l^ par I'article 932 du Code Municipal : 
" Maintient la requCte en oiiSsatipn du dit requdraut oomme bien fondle et 
"casse, annule et met i n^ant, ii toutos fins que do droit, la dite resolution oa 
" ordonnanee du dit Conaeil de Comte du Conite d'Yamoska, en date du aeiie 
" mai, dernier, aveo d^pens oontre la r^pendante, diatraits, en fuveur de Mtre. . 
'' J. B. Birousseau, procureur du requ^rant." 

Lea fonotions des Gonseils Munioipauz dit I'appolant, sont do troil sorte* 
bien distinotes ; ^adminiitrative$, Ugitlativei et judieiairt*. Lorsque lei --. 
oonseils administrent les affaires de la corporation, ou qu'ils leifislatent en son ^^^^ 
nom, la corporation qu'ils representent agit par eux, et est toujoura responsable , 
^e leurs actes ; mais dans les cas oii ils si^gent oomme tribunauz, pour decider 
^e oonteatations dans lesqnelles la corporation n'a pas d'int^rdt, et muas entn ^ 

des partiouliers sur des matidres munioipales, la corporation ne pent dtre appeltfe 
^ repondre de leurs decisions, jiourra qu'ils agisseot dans los limites de le w 
«ompeteDoe. - -. ,.''-Ms' 

Eh effet, le Code Municipal eublit oes tribunauz speciauz, k deux d^rea de 
juridictioo, et leurs decisions sont finales mdoie, quand ils se tronpont on oom- 
mettent des injustioes dan's leuni jugements. ^ 

Si o'est an Conseil Local qai siege oomme tribunal, ses decisions sont rendaei 
en premier ressort, sujettes k appel au Conseil de , Comte, de la part de toute 
personne interessee. 
"Art. 926; *" 

"Ily a droit d'appel an Conseil de Comte de I'homolt^tion de toat proods- 

" verbal fait par an conseil d'une municipalite rnrale &o '. 

" n 7 a xaimt droit d'appel au Conseil de Comte, de toot refas de rhomoI»- 

— • «- j — -■ ■-■■■■ - - ■ - ■■ ■■- — '■ / 



t 



. 



! 






irS 



proods-terbal, par an pdhseil de Manioifnue rurale, Ao; 



X-- 






4^ 



S18 



COUJt l)U BANC DK LA REINB, 186?^ 



La Corponi- 

Uon dii coiiUti 

d'YftfflMffii 

•t 

N. Ourodier. 



V 



"X'tpptl p«ut Ctrc porttf au Constil de Comtd, par tout« ponono* int^roa- 

■u4e." ^ -^ '^ 

8i o'eat un Conaeil do (.'onili qui ai<Sgs on pramior raoaort, alora il y a droit 
d'appel do a«a ddoiaiona k la Cour do Ciroult. 8'il »i4vfi ooiniiie tribunal d'appel 
II jugo en dernior rcwuort ; mm d<$oi«ionM aont flnalOH, at aont do vdritablea jugc- 
nienlB, ayaut lea luOmoa «flf«tM que lea jugouienta doa tribunuux oiviU do droit 
ooniiuun. . . . . ' 

Article 1061. . 

" II y droit d'«pp*I iV In Cour do Ciro^|^it du (/'oint<S ou du district., 

•• 2o. Do (onto dooiaion donndo par un Coqaqil Ho Uonit^, rolativoment 4 uti 

" proc«^8-V6rbnl fuit ut honiologu^.... ..^ ^ua I'autoriW do co 

'* ^ontaW niigtant autremeMqu'tnappel." 

"^ Article lOtja. Le mot "jugement," einpl«^ dona lea diapoaitiona auivaii- 
" tea do 00 tiire, ooiuprond <$Kolemunt Ioh diooiai^a duiii^ea pi" «n Oouaeildo 
" Conito ou pur un burouu du d^l^gu^a." . ^ifSr* ' 

MaiDteoaiit, si lu Conaoil, on ai^goant oooi&e jfribunni, outrepoHHo ao juridio- 
tion, Roit en a'urrogoaut doa pouvoira quo la loi no4tti oonftropoB, aoit en violant 
dana lea proeiidtfa lea preaoriptiona imjs^ratitoa do la loi, alora il eotumet une 
illegolitd, <|ui donno & tout "eleotour" lo droit de a'attaquer a la oorporatioii 
pour demander la oawation, en vertu do'l'artiolo 100 du Code Municipal. 

" ?'«"^ procds-verbol, rfllo, risohition, ou autre ordonnance du Oonyil Muni- 
" oipal peuvont fltro oa8»i9..,...|K!<^la Cour de Circuit, du Comte ou du diatrict, 

«' HOUaOADSB U'lU.tOAIJTE/'S3?C.v 

Mais il no peut y avQir. oaute itnUi^liU, quo dana lea cna Aeuloment oik le 
Coneeilu'a pas do di«ori|ion; it peut bien tomber dana I'orrour, pldmexsoni- 
niettro dea injusticea dana sea apprdoiationa, maisjl no viole paa la loi; oea d«J. 
oiaions produiaent la chohe Jooek, qui eat, dana toHS iescaa, la prdsomption do 
la vdrit^, et duna ce caa la oorporntion no peut «tro gppel^ A r^poridro dea d^- 
ciaiona de aorr Conaoil. ; " 

, Lorsquo l« Conaeil sidgo commo tribunal d'appel, le Code MOnioipal lui laiase 
tout© latitude pour decider, dana aa discretion, le litige qui lui est aoumis. 

Articles 932. "LoCoi^il, aprda avoir entendu lea requtfranta, 4o. &o, 
" eonfirme, amende ou rejette le rAglenaent, le procAs-forbal, ou Is decision dont 
"ilyanppel." 

.Or dans le oaa actuel, le litige port^ devant le Conieil de Comt^, le 16 mai^ 
dernier, n'int^reseaitnulloment la Corporation appelante ; ion conaoil ai^geait 
comme tribunal judiciaire d'appel pour d^ider de oonteaUtiona moas eotre 
particuliera; il avait la plus entidre disortftion pour dfcider au meillenr de la 
connaisaance et do la conscience de sea membrea, dans un sens oo dans I'autre, en 
faveur dea parties int^resstfes; il a jug6 i la majority do sea membres, dans le 
aena et pour un motif qui lour a para juste «t raisonnable; comment pent-on 
dire qu'il a eoipmia, 14, une ilUgalitS, el peat^n reoheroher la Corporation 
appelante, pour la rendre responsable de ee jogmnent ? Haintenir I'affinnative 
aerait renverser toute r^oonomie^e notre Code Mn»'o«pel. 






u 



y 



^ 



OOUR DU BAifO DB La kRINE. 186d. 



W^tlft 



f 



•I 

N. Duro«b«r. 



Oimmtt d« I'tpptlauto, par mh Ju|ttn«n( du 16 mai. d«rni«r, »fMt pirfdt^ UINkt^ 
meotl* droit d, d^oidar oomm. Jl I', f.i,, ,» d. n>.intenir U «A«.. >«^, co««, "rTfiST.** 
tout tribunal ordinaire p«ut la fkira. »«■•"• 

La Coor d« Oirouii par aon Jugamant dont eat appal aur la rwiuCia en ea.«i. 
lion da I iDtlof . argu* qua 1« Conaall da I'app*|.„t0 .ftU vioU la loi an proorfl 
«ant * jugar 1 appal, " ,«„, in,iruir4 tt tnindn la iauu, ainri que tordmn* 
i ortuJe 9'J'4 d» Code Municipal," tQm,h4. ' 

La Mar «a pramidra inaUnoa a oommia U un* arraur da fait, at » hit aoa 
rauiaa appliaaUon da l'artlol»J)32. 

II cat bioB <Subli m JiUt, qu« la llUga aoumia par l« awmnd nppal. la 16 mai. 
»i*ni or, (1884), ayait i^ jug< par la Gonaail da I'.ppalanta, lora da proniar 
appol, lo 24 ootobra prM<iant, ( 1683). MCmaa partial oonoani^ qua oallaa da 
proniier appal. Mfimba quaationa litigiaaMa quo oallea nSgUaa oontradiot^iro- 
ment aar la premier appal. 

Sttf la Booond appel, " dit le ttfmoin Pierre Vanasae, (d^poaition 4 1'appeDdioe) 
««5eait U, mtmt, inUrt„i,, It, i^iiMquettiont tl U mtnut nroe4t verbal de 
Jjouu I\trent." ^ 

II J arait done eho$e Jugie, tall que o'^tait all^gu^ dana la requltr d'appel daa 
habitanu de la Ooooeaaioa " WurUU" oa ''Petit liang," Kt la Conaeil do 
tomi^ avait la preuve de ^e fiiit au aimpio czamen dea piooea. II anffiaait d« 
comparer I'ordoonance du Cbnwil de 8t. David dont on portait appel, avoe eelle 
poriie eo appel, et renvera^ en ootobre pr^o^dent, pour vToir que oea deux 
ordonaancea <$(aiant identiquaa; oopi^ mot pour mot, la dernidre aur la 
premiit«t 

Lo Conaeil a auaai, au aimpl«eiamen daa pidoaa pr«Mat<Sea & I'appel aoqaia la « 
preuve que eon jugeiuant eo appel du 24 ootobre pi^o^Jeot qui aval M 
envoyo, oonform^ment 4 I'artiole 934 du Code Municipal au Conaeil de St. 
J>uvid, pour dire ei6awi, avait 6t6 renvera« au lieu d'fltre ez^outtf par le Con- 
aeil iiiASrieur, aoumia k aa juridiotion. 

CeataprAa avoir oonaut* oola, qu'il a refustf d'entendra d'autrea t^moina et 
de ronouveler le d^bat aur le mtfrite do la eonteatation d^ji r4g\6e par lui. II . 
u instruit la cause aaffiaamment pour ae oonvainere et adopter une dtfoiaion que 
I'oudition de tiJrooina n'aurait paa fait ojuage/ Uehoeejugie n'^taitello pas 
pour le tribunal la meilleure dea preuveaf 

" Lea pr^Moroptiona l^gales (dit I'artiele 1239 du Code Civil... ..•diapenaent 
" de toute autre preuve celui en favour de qui ellea existent ! quelquee-unea peu- 
" vent Ctre repousa^ par une preuve oontrairo; d'autressont pr<S8omption8 ywrit 
" ft de/ure, et ououne preuve ne peut lear fltre oppos^e." 

Article 1240 : 

"Nulle preuve n'eatadmise centre une preuve l^ale." 

Article 1241: '^ 

L'liutoritd de la eliote jugfe (ret judicata) est uno-pr^somption jueW it de 

JURK. 

' " Qu'est-ce, (dit Laui^^nt, vol, 20, p. 6,) que'cetto autoritd que la loi Tittribue ' ^ 
" A la clioae ju^^^u ?— Pothior r^po'nd : " L'autnrjat^ dc la cnoSK JUttEE fait 



^.t 



a 



^k^^'A COUR DU BANC t)8( LA RKINK. Iflet. 



te :S 



V|* 



M. OuroalMr. 



U o«rtM>r*- " pr4iiiiMl< ofrti «i 4fitifaAI« Ural •• qui «l MiliM daM k )| i|< M <it : At 

" * Voir ftUMi Laronibiirt, Tol. 5. pp. 196. 107, 198. 

Muia, dii riiiiiiiitf, on paal Mua I'auioriU dm •rti«l«M 810^ du Ood« MmI- 
oipul, anendtr on lout Itnps, un proc^-terbal par un r<^(llin«nt. 

Tr^»-bi«n, iiiui* ceU obliK»-til un CohmU da faira daui on pluaitun pro«<$a, 
aur lo ni4lnl« |>r<i€^Tcrbnl, duiia \t» iiiAin«aeiroouatan(wa,f( atilrvlaa mAinaa Inti^ 
r«at4» ? Cortiiinauiant ((ue nun. Cu ii'eai paa |& o« qua o«t' artiela vout dire, 
* Qui^ni lina ortloiinanofl niunioipalo a 4l<( diaoul^' (Nitra lea parliaa Ist^raa*^, 
qf^f|« miti iitl()|||<S«) coiitradiotoiremani, qu'olla «i>t pamtfoau crauaatd* I'inatruo 
tion judioioirt', iia doit-ollu pa»Atnl oidautte dana an foruio et tanaur, ouniDi<i 
lout jugcuiciit, »nul' pluN Urd A tui iuira dca oliunguuientN, ai la n4ccaail^ *'en 
fait itintir ? L'art. U.')2 invoqud na pout ? ouloir Kaitctionnor la rtdioulo prdtoii- 
tion qu'on feM «<>ttut«ttr« uno mdmu ordounairao dous foia, ou plua *u mdmo 
tribunal, pour la p<!lrir et la triturcr, juaqu'a ee qu'ou I'ait ui!m> au gvQt du 
toua loa pluiiiciira. Hi on p<.ub la Houuiettro dam fuio, pour los iu(^uioa raiaona, 
ct dana Ira niAtiiea oirconatuiivca, on pout la Mumcttro dii at quinio foil, et 
ainai dterniHcr Icm proci^a et diudvr lea flna dc la Jui«tiot>. Si paruillo pr<{tootion 
•Tait la aanCtioii du In jurinprudenoo, <» acrait 4 d<$aeip^rer do In juaiicc. 
. Dana loua lua oia', on ne pout blAmer un Conaoil et I'aeouaer de ooinniettre 
una ilUijaliti, (juuiid il rcruac de faira deux foia le nlmo proeia en affirmant lur 
lo deuxil^nio i\m la uliooo a M ju^«)e «t do:ttera telle quo jug^. 
Voioi lo juj^t'iuoijt do I.1 cour d'uppol. 

Conaid^runl i(u'& uno Hoonion du oonavil municipal do la paruisao do St Duvid, 

dana lo couit<5 d'Yuiuiidko, lenuo lu troin leptembre 1883, un rt^xlonicnt a 6td 

paantf oonceriiiiiit lea ruutex, pont», fuandi et clAturea do Jo*. & l'ierr« Cliaui- 

borlaud," lo dit nWIonient hnnioluguunt o n partie niaia rejelant dana sra polniM 

i lea plu8 iniportantH le prncAi-vcrbul do Louia I'areAt, surintcodant du oonacil 

TloOal <|o In pni-oiMO du St. D.tvid. 

- GonMid^rnti^ qn^ilj a eu oppcl do la d^uinion do dit conaoil local au oonacil 
do eomtd concurntnt'ce r6^'lenieot, et que par resolution du dit oonaeil looal, a^ld. 
ooaa^. aavoir le i4oc(obre 1883, ct lo prooi^s verbal du dit aurinteudaot hoiuolo- 
gud pour iBtro execute iSuivatit aa Ibrme et toiieur. 

Cobsid^raut quo le 7 ayril 1884 le dit oonacil local agisaant comnie a'il n'dtait 
poa lie pur In d4oi8ion du jBonaeil de oonitiS et aaoa niduie eaaayor do la mottro ' 
ik cz^cutioD, a procddd aur nouvclle requdtb, 4 puaaor uu autro' riglouient duns 
les niduicH tcrnica quo 1« rdgloment annnld du 3 septembre 1883, r<Stabli88ant 
80S amendeuieiits au rapport du dit surintcndant el renvoraant' virtuellement lu 
'' d^iMon rcndue en appcl par le consoil do oomitf le 24 octobro 1883. 

Consid^rant que aur un nouvel appcl, porte dovant lui par Dolphie Simnrd 

et autrea, lo dit conflcil d« comtd a, le 16 niai 1884, aprds avoir lu ot conaidc^rd 

In requdtc en~ appel oontre le rdglement et lei procdd^s du dit oonaeil local du 

^7 avril 1884, caM^ le dit r^lemeat et les diis p('oe(6des en adoptant la resolution 

qui Buit : 

^< Attendu quo la qaestion en litigc sur le present appcl a 6t6 r^gltip par lo 



■» 1., 






TT 



^UB I)l| BANC DK L A Rj 



I 

B^tNK, 1S68U 



iti 



•n homotoga 






'■4. 
\^-^ 



U IT or Crtpoau, fl|,, do U paroi»« da St David ,,,,1 „nt par reqttfita «„ d.la — __ 

18H4, la rtKlaniont ct le. prooAj<(. du dU oonwil loo.l du 7 mil 1884 la 
jonjjjl da come. . .gl d-na lo. lln.ita. da .. jurUdiotioa at dan. „ ri^' • 
dwita qui lui aout rooonnm. par la loi. 

Con.iddr.ntp.rt.nt, qu'il y . crrour d.na la ju«e„icnt dont aat .ppal a.,olr 
la jug«nant rendu par I. Cour de Circuit pour la l>i«tri,t da Jliohalicu. le 9ma ' 

CL t ',:, T' '"^"' ' "'•'"^"" ''-l"«'« ^ cation dudi 

•ntim^ at . .nn«M I. d.te resolution ou ordonnanoa du oon«,ll da oomt^ du 16 

c2Sn .^Tj""'" r*""".' "'™" ''^^ "-J-, r-voia 1. dita raquL on 
oamtion 1 ,ntun< .,ac d6pa„. t«nt en Cour de pwmiire In.tmoa quVa .pp«| 
(LoahonorobleajugcsToMierotOroasdlMldonU): -« ^'l™• 

^. Oer,^,.*, .vooat de I'appel.nto. ■ Jugeipaut reomwJ. 

/ A. ■0roiM«eau, Qvooat dfi I'intimd. 

V COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 

^^ MONTREAL, MARCH 27fa, 1886. 

Chrum Sib A. A. Dob.on, O.J.. Cross, J., TEssua, J., Monk, J., .04 

,.^'-"' BaBT, J.. : \^ _ 

/-> TH8 GREAT NORTHV^gSTBRNTELKORAPHOOMPANt, iS 

(.^^'ndanU in th* Court btlow,) 

M V ..„^.. *^ Appiliamti: 

r. X. AROUAMBAULT, ' /^ 

{J'laintifintht ()mtrt btlow,) 
"^••11? \ "'"^ *" *»"•'"*"» *■ "»>«"°« in it. nature. • - 

me appeal ^M firom.s judgmetat cond e mning t,h. onmr ..n j f. r " J t^'" f ^ 



a il 



f'j 



222 



COURT OF QUEBN'8 BENCH, 1866. 



u 



ir 
- T , 



The Great * libel. The oircuiiiBU«o«B were as foHo.w» :— Thelfe^graph Company tranamitted 
TeUgraphCo. OVM their line to the Associuted Prwia oC the Province of Quebec a telegram in 

»na V the following turma: — . -j. 

Archauibanlt. ,, ^^^ noum vaa entered here to-day by Mri". Sylvia S'liltli', of this city, widow, 
to" recover 9915 from Mr. F. X. Archarabault, Q. G., M.P.P. The amount 
includes an,item of 9300 handed defendant for aeourity that the plaintiff would 
appear in gDurt tojanttwer a complaint, which she did, and was discharged, but 
the money 'was never returned. Tho bklanoo was for enteftainments in the 
plaintiff's innnsion for himself and friends, which, it is alleged, defendant 
^ promised to pay, but neglected to do so. " 

Both parties appealed from the judgment, the Company on the ground t,h\p 
_ they Were not reaponsible, and Mr, Archarobuult on the ground that therdiimag«» 

awarded wore too little. » - ' 

JDORION, C. J., This- action is quite novel, and very little" is to be found in'' 
the books, which applied to it A|new8paper correspondeut gave informatioii 
to the Teli'graph Conipnuy that an Action was to be taken against Mr. Aroham- 
bault, /&^ member ot Parliament and Queen's Counsel. The statemer^t, which was 
libellous on its face, iwaa transmitted by the Tel^rai^ Company to thfl press. 
Mr. Archuuibault applied for the name of the person who furnished the infor- 
mation, and the Company refused to give it. . JAr. Archamboult then brought 
his action against the Company and got $50 dipiages. The Company appealed, 
on the ground that they had done nothingrwrdjig] that they were bound to 
transijuit every telegram brought to them, anid that they were bound to secrecy 
by the terms of tho law itself. Mr. Arohanoibuult also appealed, on the ground 
that the damages were not sufficient. As tb the pretension that the Company 
ar«: bctund to send over tbeir lines every message brought to them, I must 
, eipressa decided dissent from suchra proposition. Does the law mean that if a | 
; man wishes to commit a crimiQal offence, through the instrumentality of a tele- j 

graph line — ^if he wishes to order somebody po commit a murder for instanoe— ^ 
that the company are bound to lend their assilstanoe by transmitting liis mesatgo ?-' 
' s^ Surely not. And if a nian wishes to telegraph that some one has robbed his 

'^ . neighbors, is the company bound to send such a message ? I understand that a 
•^company might not be liable^for sending a inlesaage in oer&iin casds^for example 
' a libel written in oypher, ..but that was not the case here. They had lent the 
^ ' .,--r- aid of iheir lines to circulate a statement whi^h was injurious to a respectable 
eitis^. Beoeutljr, tjie questioii came up whether a newsvendor who merely 
sold a newspaper v»48 liable fof publishing lil^lloufl matter contained in it, and 
it was held that if he knew there was a libel in the paper when he sold it, he 
, was responsible, ilere an operator in the service of the Company read tiie 

message at obe;efid of the .line, and it was received by^ operators elsewhere on the 
' > ^1 ^ . . line. They p6uld not be ignorant that the statement waa injurious to a member 
of Parliameht. They had oiroulated it juB( as a newa vendor circulates a libel 
in a pap^ which he sello. Agaih, it was pretended that it was a confidential 

, commyhication. But it" waa open to all th^. employees, and an^ one who could^ 

andintand the tick of the telegraph might know what was paasmg. I'be law ot 



y\ 



COUiq' OF QUEKN'S BliNClI, 1S36. 



IW. 



223 



England ds to oonttdentiil ooiuiDuiiicAtioni is not (he narno us the Uw existing in^vrhe Qn%i 
France. In KnglanJ^ if you write a letter to a man, it is a conBdential com- N^hweittra 
AjlSioation. A most soandalous stuteneut inaj be sent in a letter, and there ^*''^ 
is no action, because it is oonfidential. That was not the French doctrine. A A™l>««>»e»ult 
libel does not depend upon the number of persons who are aware of it, but upon 
the occasion. If an employer tells'a person who applies to him for information 
that his clerk has robbed him, it is a confidentinl oommvnioatioii. It is not be- 
cause the statement is made only to ono person that it is oonBdontial, but because 
it is a duty ichicb devolves upon the employer. The Telegraph Company here 
were not in a similar position. They made themselves respoiwiblo for the cir- 
culation of a libel, and the Cou|rt below had rightly held thum in daraagos. The 
appeal of the Company must therefore bi dismissed. As to the cross-appeal of 
Mr. Arcbaojb^ult, |50 was no doubt • very small sum for a person whose 
feelings had been greatly injured. Eat it must bo borne in mind, in a new case 
like this, that the.Telegraph Compan>*s employees acted under the erroneous im- 
pression' th^l they were bound to transmit everything that was given to them. 
» There was do malice, nor wjis there any evideneo thnt Mr. Arohambault suffered 
one cent of damage. On these grounds.! would not havjj disturbed a judgment 
allowing even so Iittl« as $50, though if I had alt in the lower Court I would 
have given a larger sum. In another case which I remembered, the Hon. Mr. 
Geoffrion was piiblli^ly accused on the hustings of having falsified an acquittance! 
The accusation did Jnm no damage, but he was urged by his friends to brins? 
an aetion. He did W and only obtained 150. I do not exactly justify the 
judgment, but I would\ be disposed to let it stand. However, the majority of 
the Court were about td give a larger sum. 

Cross J. The Telegri^h Company were in the position of simj)le transmitters 
of messages. They enabl^ people to talk together, and so long as it was private 
and confidential, the communication must be very injurious indeed to make the 
Company responsible. But here the telegram was neither private nor oonfidential . 
It was communioited to the press, so tho Compmy in assuming a different func- 
tion became liable for what was injurious. The question then arose, was this 
message injurious ? There was very littlo in the terms of the telegram itself 
that was injurioun. All that wm asserted was that » lawyer received money 
for a c»;rtain purpose whioit lie did not return, and there was ,ilso a reference to 
entertsinmeats. There wa.i nothinj; in tho message to show that there was any- 
thing scandalous in these entertainmontx. It was undoubtedly .i slander to say 
of an advocate that he did not pay over money that he had received, but it was 
not to beirisited with vindictive damages. The ^lamagos might have been more, 
but not necessarily «o. I concur with the Chief Justice in thinking (hat thU 
Court ought no( to go further in tho matter of damages. , 

Tessier, J., The court was unanimous as t^ the question of responsibility/ 
The only difference of opinion was as to whet^fr the sum of $50 Wfu* sufficient 
damages according to the proof. The majority of the Court were of opinion that 
this sum was not sufficient, that it did not indicate to ili« f!ntn pft,.y ,n 



* 



* » 



224 



COURD op QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



w^^ ^'Vt^ Arohambault was aooased of having reoeived money that he did n^ hand over 
Teugnph Go. to his olient. He was also subjeoted to injurioat imputations In his family 
Areluimbaalt i'®^^<>°'' "^^^ Company were asked who was the anther of the libel and they 
rcfased to answer. Was this jostifiable ? It was not only unjnstifiable, but 
it aggravated the position of the Company in the matter. Under^tjble oiroum- 
stances I am of opinion that the damages should be increased to $500. 
Monk and Babt, J. J, ooncurred. ^ 

Appeal of company dismissed, and on the cross appeal, judgment reversed 
and $500 allowed, Dorion, C. J., and Cross, J., differing only as to increase of 
damages. ' 

Abbott, Tait A Abbotts, attorneys for the Cimpany, appellantb. 
ArehamdauU d St. Louit, attorneys for the respondeat. 



■^^' 



COUR DE REVISION. 
MONTRBALivSO JANVtBR 1886. 
Coram DoniRTT, Fapineau et Lobanqeb, J J. 
HORltIDA» ROYAL, 



DKH AMDBDB ; 



V8. 



JULfeS LAJBUNESSB, f" 
^ ,1 D&rsMoacR. 

Jcoft :— Qae, rdgle gSnirale, celai qui est Qug? d£biteur et qui n'a pas fait i'ottn eat 

pas^bledes d£pens, bien que la reclamation fonne^ contre lui soit susceptible 

de redaction. "^ ^ 

LoBANGKB, J. :— Le demandeur r^lame $300 de dommages pour avoir ^t^ 
renvoy^ satis'oause du service du d^fendcur. ' 

Celuiroi a-ptai(]^ ohbse jug^e et qu'il ^tait justifiable d'avoir cong^di^ le 
•demandear attendu que celui-oi remplissait mal les devoirs de sa charge. 

La Cour a accord^ $100 et les frais d'une' action de cette classe, pais a con- 
damn^ le demandeur h payer an d^fendeur la diff(£rence.des frais d'une action 
de $100 et oeuz de Paction telle qv 'intent^e. 

Je croisque le jugement est omforme k la preuve en ce qui comporte le 
montant capital de la conclamnatioi , mala qu'il est erron^ quant ^j'adjudication 
des d^pens. 

Le d^fendeur a faUli dans ses douz plaidoyers; il n'a rien offert et cons4- 
quemment il n'a droit a aucuns frais. Si le demandeur est oblig^ de savoir 
combien le d^fendenr lui doit, oe diernier est ^galement oblige de savoir oombien 
il doit. Le demandeur a dvalu^ ses services «t ses dommages ik $300; et la Cour 
lui a donn^ raison jusqu'^ concurrenoo de $100. D'un autre c6t^ le d^fendeur 
a 4valu^ cos tervices 4 rien da tout, et cependant il se trouve & profiter d'une 
oont^tation qu'il a engag^e de mauvaise foi. 

II n'y a pas ici lieu a la discretion ordinaire quant auz frais. II s'agit de 
dommages r^els resultant de reit^oution d'un contrat ; partie des dommagai sert 
4 couvrir et 4teindte une dette enooara; pour salaire, et le demftodear se trouve 



^l\ 



COUR DE REVISION, 1886. 



225 



J ne rccd voir en r^alitd qu. $7.50 quaad la Cour rcconnait qu'il a droit ^ $100 
llyadcsoasoii Ja Cour doit fuiro porter nu deuiandour le fardoau des fraia 
auxquels U a expose son advereaire. Ainsi Ic jugfi itant convnioca quo le 
domandeur a eiagdrtf le montant.de son action dans lo but de fairc payer dcs 
frnis quand mome au dt'fendeur, punira le dcmandcur do ea mauvaise foi en lui 
• fai8nnt ains. payer lo surplus dos frais qu'il a ninsi ocoasionnds. Mais tcl n'est 
pas c ens ic.. L'action ertt en rdalito u„e action pour dotte, au moins jusqu'au 
v^ontaut accords par la Cour, et le delbnUeur auraifc .IQ faire des offres/ 

Telle a tonjours cie la jurisprudoace i^i, et eette jurisprudence est^onfbrme 
a celle suivie en Fiamca de tout tempa. 

Lo jugemcnt dovruit etro modifio et le ddfcdeur condutnnd purement ct ' 
fiimplement aii paieiuent do la sommo do $100 avec les .lo.>3,..s d'une action do 
eo«e oJasse et les depeiiB do cottg Cour, " ♦ 

%u t>ance,dit I'appelnnt dun. son fnctun), on y conipense quelquc foi.. Ics 
ddpeil^ turns seulcment lorsque lo domandeur, poursuivaut sur plusieurs causes 
d action, ou lorsque le ddfendeur, proposant plusieurs moyos de 'defense 
rduRsissent quant nux uns et succoiubent quant aus autre^ " ' 

2 Jousse, p. ISO, no a, 2o alinda. j ' ' . 

1 Deliiporto, p. 130. • . 

1 Boitnrd, p. 233, no 279. ■ 

Merlin, /}c!)je«.s-, no 2, 2e et 38 aliutSis. - • 

Dailoz, AV, /"Vrtis c< i>^y;eus, p..8r>, no 86. 

Mais lorsque le dcmaudeur y poursuit pour 30:)0 IV. ot qu'il n'obtient ju-e 
mcnt qypponr lOOQ fr., si le ddfendeur nefnit.p.s d'oHFrc, il est condanmd - 
purera^t et simplenient a p^yor 1000 fr. et les frais d'uno action do 1000 fr et 
le ju-e n'y assomrne pas et le demandeur et lo ddfendeur du m5:ua c)u-> 
Ce point ne nous parait pas 6tre douteux ni sous I'ancien ni sous le 'n^ 
syst^me de procddura frangiis, 

Voloi quelques nutoritds pir rapport nu nouve:.u .syst^mo, q.i donno Hen plus 
de pouvoir discrdtioimaiie au jugo sur la q-iostion di«s dopens • 
^_ Chauvbau, Diet, deprodd. p. 181, no 73 : "Oelui qui est juge debiteur 
etquiri'a pas fait d'offre, est passible des ddpens, bien quo la reclamation 
tormdecoatro lui soit susceptible de rdduotion," 

Et dans son Journal dcs Avouis, t. 9, p. 230, no. 77, il dit : « C'cst cequ'a 
^ ddcdd, le 19 novembre 1813,;la Cour de Rennes -.-Considdrant, 4 1'd-^ard des 
ddpens, que Noguos n'ayant pas fait d'offrcs, est passible de touS les ddpens 
de prem.6re instance, ^s qu'.ls ont dfd adjugd, par le jugement dont est 
nppel, m6me do la plus grnnde partie dea depcns de I'appel, parce qu'il snc- 
combe, dtant jugd ddbttenr.-bien que la rdclamatibn formde centre lui soit 
"susceptible de reduction." 

Mfime sons I'empire de la rdgle de la compensation des ddpens, lorsque plu- 
Bieurs chefs sont proposds lie part ou d'autre, Dalioz rJipporte un arrfit du 5 
novembre 1834 qui a jugd « que la partie qui a sucoomb^ sur tons les chefs de 



Royal * 
ra. 
Lajeunesse. 



nouVcau 



'cont 



Bdamade-A-tetts-fe^-tM B 



" do la demande de son ad versairo a m beaucoup rdd'uit par le juge. " 

Sbptembeb, Vol. 30.— No. 9. 



^ 



,=«^ 



""i. 



•r,^-.. 



Ti. 

Lajtuaepiie. 



^ 




'!-.;■■ 



COUB DE REVISION, 1886. 



" La Gour : — Gonsiddraat que Qoubert a snooomb^ sur tous les ohefii de oon- 
'I tostattOD ; que, par suite, il a dCi dtre oondamn^ ea tous les dtSpens, et que la 
" Cour rdjale, en proDongant oontro lui oette ooadan^atioD, loin de violer 
" I'urtioie 130 C. Pr., on a fait a,a contraire une juste apblioation ; — Bejette." 

Et Dulloz ajoute : " II faut tcmarqu^r ^ue la Cour constate' que le proofs 
!' s'^tuit engagd sur un grand notpbre de ohefs de '^Contestation, ct quo Udulet. 
"avaitsulsconib^ sur toUs; qu'importait, d6s lors, la i-Muotion qui atrait ^te 
"op^r^e ^urun des ohofs de demande ? — Dalloi, iB</»l,. verbis Frait et Dipens, 
.■"no 43. J 

Nous avons ditqu'en Franco, sous Tancien syst^fho, comnil<c sous le nouveau 
le d^fendour qui ne faisait pas d'offre <Stait invariablement oondamnd 4 tous lei' 
d^peoa de Taction, mfiine si elle ^tait ez^4r($e. ^ • • 

Soiisrainfiea jr^gime, rafime le d^feudeur qui faikait dos offreR.^tait conduidnd 
i ions les dipens, siscd offreis b'^taient -pas entidreuiont «uffiiantes, m^me lorsquo 
la deouinde ^tait ezag^rde. ' ' / ' " ' ' . 

La nQUvelle jurtsprudence a apporte h cette rj^le, qui est encore notre loi au 
Canada, Wn certain temp^ramment. ' ' 

BaWoi^IUp. loco cit. no. 42 : ** Dans Tanoieiiiine jurisprudence, ofl consid^rait 
" toutefoii c'onime partie perdante, celle qui, ^{iant d^bitrioe, nc faisait pas dcs 
" offres suffisantes ; par oola seul qu'elle n'avait pas offert la scRnme allou<Se par IC 
"juge, ello ^it rdput^o pcrdre son proofs et oondamn^e aiuc ddpens. La nou- 
"Velle jurispVudencoa oooipris rartiple 130 C./Fr. dans an sens plus large et plus 
" ratiouel. U est certain que le pl»idourqui reclame 27,000 fl^anos, et auquel 
"la jufitioe n'aecordeque 14,000 francs, nerd beaucoup plus son proems que 
"radversairo qui offrait 12,000 francs et qWi est omg6 d'en payer 14,000." 

1 Thorn. Djsm., p. 255: "II n'y aurai^pas moins lieu k compensation s'il 
" nVizistnit qu'un soul chef do contestation, oomine «i Tun formait one demande 
" trd^zag^r^e et que I'autrei nefit qu'une offre insuffisante." 

Malgr^ cette petite variants cntre ]'aaciCnne et la nouvelle jurispradenee fran- 
yaise, nous oroyons pouvdir affirmer au tribunal, aprSs des recherCliea oonscien- 
cieuses, que la rdgle invariable en Frafice a toqjours 6t6 qlie'pour que le d^fen- 
deur pftt faire retomber desfraia sur le demandeur, meme lohque i'aotion n'^tait 
maintenue qu'en partie, il fall/it qoQ le d^fendeur eftt fait des offr€#. 

Autrefois ces offres devai^t Stro da montant juste et ezact; maintenant il 
soffit qo^elles soient approzimutives. 

Mais, dira I'intim^, les frais soot laissjs k la^disorStioo da juge et il {i ^t^ 
plosieora fois d^id6 qoe les tribunauz d'appel n'interviendraiQnt pas dans une 
^mple qoestion de frais. .. Noos r^pondons :' lo il ne s'agit pas ioi d'ane simple 
qoeation de fraii, puisqoe la somme pfinoipale est en'd^bat; 2o il a6t6 d4cid4 
" qoe qooiqo'eo' revision comme en appel, la question des frais toit secondaire, 
eependant, lorsqo'elle impliqueia violation d'ao priilci^, les tribunauz nd 
doivent pu I'totrter et, dans oe ooa, on jogement p/arra fitre r^formd sur.cd 
point leul." M. L. B,--1'S. C. 203. 

Ti a iti i U Mti m A ik H a ll k Ur iffla iii, il * rfM t jag^ qna " Tha .Saprior Court in 



*^raview will revise ft judgment where the qoly point in di^pjateis as to con^, 



» 



/ •* 



fl^ . 



COUR DE REVISION, 1886. 



>*>■ 



227 V 



LajeunaiM. 



^' Md Will Mform .D award as to cost- which appears to be unju8t."-3 Leg. N. Rojal 
Voir aussi M* L. R—l s. C. 302. ^' 

J-ongpriet pavid, prooureurs de TappolaDt. ^ 
Archambault et St. LouU, prooureurs de rintlmtf. . 



COURT OP REVIEW. 

MONTREAL, MAT 3l8T, 1886. 

Present : JoHifsoN, JiTti AND Papwbau, J.J. 
y-T'- . — — HENRY T. DEC HENjp, etal.. " ~ 

• ' - •*"" ^ - 'PiTItlOJIIHS; 

- , . r JOHN FAIRBAIRN, e( a/., 

^"*''"^offi««^rtr """k ^"^ *** compeli the performance of pubHrd^IyrpuWic 
officer., although the statutable time'fo, perfonnlug the duty ha. paid 

J0H5B0N, J.-The judgment under re^ie* discharged the three defendants 
Fa.rba.rn. Bergej- and Malone, from obedience to a writ of peremptor™d.r; 

il;LTtr"rv*''f'«'-*"'^f '''^ i8thPebrua:;.whih^rrnh 

Indth^ If ?'""""■' r""* '"^ '^' liBt of .„p„ieipal electors 6f this city 
sough^, .s whether the revtsors had the power at the time the beremptory writ 
was served upon them to obey It. /There are other questions^aised and no 
unimportant such ai%>ether the court below had the question S "1 .1 
«.asto'.naWeitin .adjudicating on the petition of the UenTp^ rg^e „! 
dec^ion on the merits; and, again, at to whether the answer mirby ChLe 

woulTr^'r ;•"*"''"""• '*"-''* '' ^ ^-PP-"^ « libellous ; but I tS; 

would be unsatisfactory on all accounts to let the case rest upon anythingMe s 

. than what must undoubtedly be considered the main-question^ wh ch twha I 

have already stated, viz. : whether tb, revisors could ob^y. or whether thJbad. 

wero;«immo/?ic»o, as the judgment now before us held them to be. Theperemn 
; ory mandam, was served on the revisors on the Jsrd February and was rl" 

and set forth that hey were desirous to obey, but were prevented fr6m doin« so 

* ri«I Th ; fh"''' f "'r' '' ^*" ""'»'« •"'^ ^«' *« purposes of ir! 
SfaUed a^d wIh "r^^^^^ ""^ attempt to appeal to tlje Queen's Bench. 
r„ In J!i- ' T " unnecessary to notice herelo far a, it can affect the 

on^ q^stion I propose to consider. The inability of the three revisoii t«^obey 
the wriuesulting, as 4t was alleged, from the refusal of the City CJerk toS 
up the l«.s. wap made to rest upon certain provisi<xns of Ihe statute relatinf to 

VrcVth'-t?^'.-'^"'"''^*^--"^^^^ 

Vie. C. 67 , the voters' list wna rt,nni,u,A t^ L. e 11-1—.. . . A - < *P 



preced ng the day of voting ; V ... they had been closed on thelSth of FebruaJf 
^•condly, because the 32nd section of the same statute 37 Vic. c 61 r^uS^ 



■■•'■><>, 



. I.- 1 






, < 



228 



COURT OF IIKVIEW, 1880. 



h 



\ 



Dech(iio thut tlio Hat, after having been revised, Nitined by the pretident oC ihe board of 
p {"jj"^ rcviBOfM, nndf oounttiirsi^nod by tlio city clerk and sonled with tlic seal of the 
city, should bo deposited in tiio nrchiveH at authuntic, and thut all ttiiti had been 
- done, di^d the li.st had bocn fiiiully revised, Higncd and Hcaicd on the IBth Fcb- 
' ruary, ond dispoHitcd on "the ^22i»d. It -was further ifientioncd tliat tlio 
list 8ii;ned by tlie president and' couiitersiKned ond scaled, contained 104 
nauicH UH tituso of tlio ^act imniher of voters ifi tliu ward, and 'it wait < 
BUgKcstcd. tliiiNo add a uainn m- naMtca Vvould^ l^u to tiiljify^tlio certificate. 
Now, w.iiving .ill queHtions-- of form ;i» to wli'cllier tliis was a roluio to the 
writ at ail, tlie fioint evidently suhniiitcd to the court was wiiciher the law 
enabled I ho roviso^s to obey the judgment of the ciurr, and upon.tliat point wo 
- entertain no doubt whatever. ^ The court doHirea to observe, however, before giv- 
ing an opinion upon that question, that the casp as now presented ia no manner 
' involves thcqiteiition whether the i^iandaniU'd originally issued pi.iporly or not. 
If that question, instead of being taken to appeal where they would ncttcntertitin 
'^ it, had bee* brought here, we should havts been obliutd to give a iflirectdcciBion; 
upon it, but tlii.i was not doiie, and the oiit-c is now eoiifincd to what 1 have stated. 
We ore couslrained to tell the revisers and their clerk that thuy have made n 
great mistake. Wo ^uy no wore than titat because ti^e particular faots are iiut 
lefore U9, and good faith on their part is (ioinpalihle with Hich a inisapproboimion. 
Ou two grouuds, however, we hold that they have mistaken their duly. In the 
first place, on the 18th February, Jvlien they resolved not to obey, but U» go to 
appeal instead, they were still wit^iin the statutable time tbr pfcrfonaiug the duty 
, required of them. In the second place it is (jlear that thdy conlused sumo of • 
the duties of their office with the office itself. Their office op doubt compre- 
hended all theil' duties as revrsorft^until their socccssors were appointed for the 
following year ; hut the performance or neglect of one or more of those duties 
left them in office just as much as they were before. Their pohltioa in this 
respect may perhaps ^e likened in some respects to that of a judge whoso judg- 
ment is taken to appeal where he is told to reopeYi tho case and hear evidence, 
and do more complete justice.' If tho judge in such a cuho could not eay that 
the judgment being giveif, he would not reopen the case, the revisors oohld not 
^eayso here. The parallel is evidently not complete ; but tho case I put may 
serVo to illustrate what I mean. The writ told them peremptorily that not 
havJLig done what the statute told them to do within a certain time 
and what the law requires them to do, they must do it at once. 'Tli^y 9.n^€t 
by a sort .of remonstrance, and submit what tbcy conceive the statute enabled 
themito,dy. They say " The statute^ told us to do this (if it was to be done at 
all) withiq a cttrtain time. We have let the timoelapso without doing it ; and 
it vA now too late to do it at all." As far as tho statute scorns to direct them 
they were right at the time tho peremptory writ issued, but wrong at the time 
of the first judgment <^d the l^]i February ; but it was not only the authority 
of the statute at that time that tnoy wercv required to follow, it was the authority 



) 



-of-tb» eourt also. ~ 



wty^whertfa atatutc-4H r octfr-tlie-pot»- 
formauce of an act for the public good, and (here has bceo a wrongful omissioik^ 



, v,^ 



COURT OP RKVIEW, 1886. 



229 



\nl«rV 1 kr. . •'^^"'■"'"- Whatever the reviioni, therefore ood their „ *** 

Tntti^rlh^J^fT '^ ""^ P'''*^^'^" of th« court; .nd it is quit, evi- 

"we ^^11^^^^^^ *'''"'":!'^ ""y' ''^''" ''>« .tatutabletime had expired, 

we awAnc^t o^cio," khey could omit hundreds of thousands and Jr ihl 

wmmumty ot men It inust either be betfause no value is ^t upon la* and * 
I«bert^, aa dutinguislied from the mere wanton exercise of power w7thonTr;2 
orbeeau«.therei,noadeqaateremedy. But we shall pr^Z^ iftC^t 

Tu d aXh r;''' "' *'^ ^''**^" '" *•>" caseLws tL th rglt " 
^alued and that adequate remedy (and there is no other) is the prerogative 
wnt of „,andan,us; and j^nless itcould be shown, which of cour^ ifcoXo 

Snd'aH ;*'??,L*:r"°°"''^>' that «nde; the express p^vi of the 
ir, Vk ; "^ '^. ^'^' "^ ^'°«'^"'-« "«» 'he statutes it reproduces parti 
h^S^ofcth' *"'' <!^"- »2th Vict, c. 49. the Superior Court of Lower Can at" 

ofQ;wsZr^'^'''rr'7'''''^ 

T oTl? . r t '" ^"^''"^' '* ""'" ««^»«"'y "^r^^e theBe powers ^ ' 

142^ n?i^tr«^:?r;" *^^ ^^-^ '«• ^-»>'e'>«hS:7i East 

vs the MaW of ^ rJ^ ^'"^ ""'• Sparrow (2 Str. 1123) and the Kin? 
2 the Mayor of Norwich wire the authorities relied updu in theleading ca.^ of 

4 n r: "• :^^^T«^^-«-0" of Rochester which went mu h^rher 

thau^we are asked to do here) and extended, the power of th/court even to com 

-^1 the successors in office of those who had madeVhe omission to repair it rZ 

ZmS-- d • fT *"' Q"-»'« ««-^ -«* afterwards befo Te^^^^^^^^^ 
chamber, and is fully reported. In the first court Lord Camnbprt P * T 

S^^K-^J"^^ ,„i^j^„ ^^j^ ^^^ ^.^^^ iuconvejience wil 
^^IT t ri r^ ^'"'*' '""^"^ ^"« »^ "o-^id^ed. to have Vhe powe ' 

^TZt, 'r T^'f '"'^ P^'<^«ve writ of mandamus, A^Z^ 

?^ ? °"y *" !°'"' ^'^■' ^'^r ^"efit of the public. " TT j , L ordnliin X n "! 



Jr^Jz::;^^ ^"i^- "?"'«' ^-;;rseer;-;ir;:r3;::r 

"^en appointed -^bi. a par«h„ «. the statutes require, « in Eastcr^^ek,.oiit!S: 



:JK 



T. 



IV 



230 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1886. 




DmImo* one month, after Ewter, " • mandamus waa graQted after that time to joatioea to 
FalrUin. •PP9>'>* overaeera for that pariah ; and that appointment having been made waa | 
aolemnly adjudged to be vaKd. " This decision, " aays Lord Campbell, " haa |. 
been fVequently recognised and acted upon. There can be no doubt that, for the ^ 
public good, and to effcotuate the intention of the Logit-lalure, the retision of ' >, 
the liat, if practio«|ble, ought still to Uke plater ^ .v' 

Then the f\irthcrjobjoction in that cose, and one which doea not exiat in thj^ 
waa that the mayor who made default waa no longer in office, but that al^ wfa 
overruled. The case went to the Exchequer chamber on a writ of error, and- ' 
the judgment of the court affirmed thut of the Queen's Bench ,(two jaA^,^ 
° Williams, J., and Crowder, J., disaenting upon a ground which doea not prliaepi 
— itself here), and it waa dutinotly ^eld in that court " that the Court of Queen'a 

Banoh has the power to compel the performance of ^ public dvty by public.offi- 
oers, though the statutable time for performing the duty was passed, and to 
order the successor in offiee to do the iMts bis predcooasor has omitted to do.; 
eonfequently, that a mandamus might isaue in 1857, directing the mayor of 
18S?, and the old assessoiis of 1856, to revise.the burgess roll fq^ 1856, though 
that roll by the Municipal Oorporat^n act ought to have been revise<]^^ore 
the 15th October, 1856, by the mayor and assessors of that year. " So her^e 
' have direct authority in point, if, as I said before, any is necessary. In the 
caae of The King vs. I>enbigh8hire, however, w,hich I have already mentioned, 
' Lord Ellenborough, wlu>se language was quoted by Baron Martin in the Roches- 
ter case, had said thatS" common sense requires that if a burgess Kstofa 
borough be not properly revised at the proper time, it should ho done after- 
wards," but Baron Martin added, " if there were no authority on the aubjeot 
we should be ftew^ upon principle to> affirm the judgment <ofU>e Queen's 
Beneb. » That oourt has power by the prerogative wri| of man^mua to amend 
all errors which tend to the oppression of the subject or other misgovern ment ; 
and it ought to be used, when tho law has provided no specjfio rejpedy, and 
justice and good government require that there ought ^to bo one for the execu- 
tion 6f the common law, or the provisions of a statute." The learned baron 
went on to observe that, were it otherwise, it would be in tho power ofsuoh 
public functionaries from mistake,* corruption or ignorance to disfranchise any 
borough ; and that though an indictme'ht would lio against them io punish their 
L guilt, it would. not redress the wrong; and he concluded with these words: 
" Instead of being astute to discover reasons for not applying this great consti- 
tutional remedy for error and misgovemment, we think it our duty to be vigilant 
to apply it in every case to which, by any reasonable oonstruotion, it cat^ bo 
made applicable." So, in a later case of the Queen vfl.Ahe Mayor of Monmouth 
(5 L. B., Q. B., 251), the same principle waa maintain^, and Blackburn, J., 
^^ ^ said that if it might have been doubtful before tho deoiMpn of the Mayor of 
Rochester Vi>. Reg, in the Exchequer chamber, that case was of binding author- 
ity. Exercising, then, the powers of the court in this respect for the protection 

thinl r th at thg judg?'i"*nt o^ *^ <^ ^*^^ 
rejected the petition of tho rcvieors, which, If regarded as a return to the per- 



.V 

1 •■ 



-"V • 



/' 



.T» 



COURT OP REVIBW, 1886. 



231 



hlrl^r^ '•'["•r "■""* '■"' ''"•'*'''8 »b6 itrit. Th. judgment p.,:?" 

c«;idttv """; .*'"f""' '"'"""'^' •" r». »-.thM p.^oMt^oh^^- 
fhTw^f. tn-\ .^, "*"'' P"'"''""'" Xo be «ooor.ted from obedience to 

th3wru, ,od which declare, .t to have Usuod improvideaaJ .nd the petUioa 
of tha j«,^„ a.,»«,c.| with coet. .,aia.t the throe por4 ni.kiag U^ .nS 
tho writ mast be executed under .11 the penalties for dirtbSicoce. It i. I ^ 
-think, unnooosMiy to notice any other part of the owe I 

Jfe»r,. B<xrndt4, « C, and C7. J. Daherty, ^it^^m^jn for pe Itioner,. 
• Mi$»ri. R>mr R^jf^d) Hthief, attorney* for respondeaU ' « ^• 

J 



t 



c6Ur du banc db la rbinb. 



Br^iiants: Stft A. 



\v^ (Bw ApjpiL.) 
«(tti»TRBAL,?7 MAI 1886. 



^ fe, 



A. Dovo«,^i«ge «n chef et le^ hop. jagei t^ij Jumsati 
C%ps8 et Bawt. '■ 



TUB OBNTRAl>yBHMONT RAILROAD. 



/ 



««. 



(.04/iHdtw m Cour li^ritur*,) 



. M' ■ HONORS LARBAO, 

iietpnn^cAMti fun pmajer qui dibarque pendant que ^ train at en mouoe- 

**ent^Ni<fh}mee d* la Compagnit en n'arritant pat & la ttation.-^Faute 

commune— A qui la/amte f% 

Lo jogement de h cdur infdrieuro eipliquo les fuita de la can« : H se lit oon^ 
me suit : ' . j ' 

Conridrfrant qne leg iJMgationB de la d<Solaration du demandeur aont anffisan. 
tea poor en appuj^er les conclusions, i rcjeUJ ot rejette ladite d<Sfenao en- droit 
comme mal fond^, Ma dtfpens. \ . \ 

Etaumrfrito: Co2jddrant qu'il estprouvtf que le onie soplcmbre dernier, 
mil halt oent qnatre-vingt^iuatre, Virginte Lareau, fine mineure du demandeur 
aprds a7p,r«ohetd un billet de pas»ge au bureau du d^fendeiir, 4 St Alezandiv ° 
dans le District d'Iborville, pour aller de oet endroit jasqu'4 la tille d'lberviUe' 
pnt pi^saage k bord d'un train de possagers spr Je chemin da d^fendeur. et le 
eonjActear en charge du dit train coUcota le dit biUet dds que le train e&t qaittd 
la i^tioa de d(Spart. 

/JonsidiJrant que le dit oonducte* au lieu d**rrfiter eon train 4 Iberville 
pdurpermettreA ladite Viiginie Lareaa d'en descendre, n<Sgligea de le fain 
^mme il y tfu i tte n u ^ t an t en vnrtn H o ^ ipj f aMt i o u as d n Stj^ut de 18 7 9 1 — 



i 



" « 



-r 



■qu'en verta daoontr»t partieul'wr intarrenu eatre led^fendear etle dite Vir- 



4^ 



282 



COUll DU I'ANC DE LA REIKR, 1886. 



Tbaq^Dtrni giuio Luteau, par la vonto du (lit billut ot la oollcotloil qa'en fit 1« ooDduflteur, 

Trtnnont HU. jeoo„nni„||„t pa, i^ ,,„, le train dcvait arrCtor iL Iberville ; 

U. Ureau. Conaid^runt que la dito Virgiaie Larcau, qui, Jugoai|C que ia'train approohail 

lu atntion d'lto/villo- a'iStait prt-pnr^o i\ dodcoiHlre, ot qu.i vit hod pdre aur la plate- 

' ibrtuo I'attondant, voyaiit oepondnniquo lo di^ tt-aia n'anCtait paa maia qu'il 

avait raleuti an luurobu, aautu aur lu voio et^1re9ut en touibant doe bloaaurci «t 

ooiituaiotaa ot un ohoo ncrvuuz, qui uiiront fu vie on danger et occaaionlidreDt 

doM waladicH et uffuctiona duut ello souflfro ciiuoro, ot d'oii r<>HulteDt pour/ullu doa 

domuiagoH oousidvrablet) ; . /^ 

CoDHid«irant que loa t'aita sutidits r6v6lont qu'il y u cufuuto commune doapar- 
tioH, do la part du ooudiiotour on ne faiitidit (uih iirrdtor son train u la station * 
■ ' d'Ibcrvillo, aiuMi qu'il y <5uit tonu comme Hu.sdit, cauHO promiire do racoidont, 

etdo la part de L juune fillo on Hautant on buH^Ju train pendant qu'il dtaifen 
mouvomuut, oauae immediate do rauoiJuiit, niuis <iui| cool, tout enf <$tant uno 
raison do dimiquor Jo montant dvs doiuiiia<;u8 a ncoor^or \ lu vlctimcj, no saurait 
• oepcndant avoir I'offut d'aflfraiioUir lo duronduur do touto roHpuniiabilU^ dana I'aoci- 
^ dent, puisqu'il y * oontribud ; 

■ ' . Arbitrant loa dommagua d'aprds loa M^ da]» eauae, uinis tcar^duisnnt dana 

QDO forto proportion pnr suite de la ptirt poi^r Inquelle lu jeune fille a oontributf 
duns I'licoideut, suns admettro pour plus qu'olle no vaut lu r^lamation du miSde- 
' oio, dont lo cbiffrq paralt exorbitant ; \ 

Oopdamne le d^Fondeur ik payor au domaodeUrla sommodo quaireoent vingt- 
oinq piastres de dommagos, avco intdrfit do oe jour ct Ics d^pens, distraits en 
favour de Mr. E. Lureuu, prooureur du demandeur. 

The appellants pretend that i t is auoh a case of gross imprudence, want of 
cure, misconduct iind ncgligonoe, that she is oouiplotoly barred. '' 

The leaf ne<l judge in his -judgment maintains the cimduotor was bound to 
atop, and that the primary cause of all was his nogloot to stop, but that the 
immediate cause was Miss Lareau's nogllguuoe in jumping while the ours were 
in motion. This he calls/uuteoommuite, and mitigates the damages. 

To the 4U>pollant it does not seem poEi^iblu to cull /uu^e commune. The omis- 
"~~-^^^ aion of the conductor to stop the train can hardly bo compared or culled equal to 

"'the foolhardy act of this young ludy io^uttemptiug to jump off a train running 
at such a rate of speed. 

No malice or ill-will is any way attributable or ohatgod ugiiinat the conductor 
Miss Lareau did nut summon the oouduotor or in any way ask bim to stop the 
train. \^ "---^ » 

■-.J' ■' There appears to be no declsiona in this province ott th; point. In cases tbe 

qdeation has arisen, where there was some doubt as to the conduct of the parties^ 
where tliey were botfi ubing woat might be ealled reasonable care and prudence* 
_. The following, however, miglit be considered : li,^ 

Moffette vs. Grand Trunk, 16. L. C.R.; p. 231. Thia was •"aeoision of thfr 
GourtofBeview, Quebec (Justices Badgley, Stuart and Tasohereau.) p. 



Plaintiff sued for damages a train oommg into collision with his oarrioge; 




'"***. 



COUR DU BANC DK l.i UEINK, 1886. 



233 
-— f 



VI. 

il. Lwaaii. 



^ 



gull^ol want of ordinary oaro. contributing o^onti-lly ta the injttrr. U cannot Tt„(),„t,.i 
f^TiT'r? " »o«lie«uooon tl.« part «f .Icfondwt, amHt w.. alw-^"""""' "* 

held in that oa«, that tho „„u, of proof to Hho« noxlisence o.. tha part ol" defen- 
dant, and ordinary o«ro and prndcnoo on pUin.iffH port, wa, upon the plaintiff 

, *riBow th t ho plan,t.«r could m roiiovdr f.,r ,laa.a,ca in Koi„„ on to 4 wharf 
whoi, he hud a nght to .t « tii«e when a yo«H«| was moving Snd tha .-able 
^ ■napp'jd, ^ 

" ZilS""/" "'r 'f'T\ •" ""'^ "" "^"""y-. P- Bi a...l 52\ndcr the title 
/-.«6./.fy «/«r. both pi,He, are U f,uU, conlnbufon, nejUjen.c. 

La C.0 do Navlgat.o„. llioholiou v. S.. Je„,., M. L. U.. Mny^uno, l4. p. 

tr.butory„e«l,ffonoo where a plan.tiffobuld not recover to bo the ncKliKcnco" to 
be what .8 toohnioally o.lled oon.r.butory, „.u,t bo auoh no«ligcnoo as oontrf. 
butcd OMontially to tlio dinu^tor." « b "«« ■» oonwi 

Jnl-'^^p'""."-,^,'"''''''''' ^'- ^ ^^ ^^V-June 1885. p. 230. I„ thi. M^ 
wuhoat wh.ch the uccident would not havd happened, then ho L no right to 
^nee •• * ' "'"""^'' "'° '*'''' "* '^ ''"'° "'-" '"^" 8«ilty of negli- 

As for Fronoh authorities the appolla.it has.b?en unable to fiud .|ny direot ia 
'^The role that i^on.s to have been laii^ down by the learned Chief Justioe of 
n" 662.'*' " '^""*"'' ^ ^"'" '" ^'.'*" '"• ^•'^•^^•' ^ ^•^•' ^'^P''"'^ '" »««'**•' 

««'!-^?75"'," ^ " ^'""'' '^ '" ^""' '^^ '■* P"' ''^ •'''»^«' ^-^ J^'"^-'^'' et do la 
p«rtie>do la tiuiJHtiun dorcsponsaHlitd cat abanJonnC^o au pouvoir di.oretion- 
naire do. tnbunaux. Cost ii cux A examiner si la fuutft imputabioA la partio Ida^e 
estttulement de nature ik attdouor k responsildlitd do I'agent. ou ai elle eat 
Tu'Xmmre^"'*"'^" '*-'"*''' '^'"^'' *'<»"'P'^^«'«'»t irreoerable H se plaipdre 

There qeems hardly any doubt as to the grave nature of Miaa LAau's mL 
It involved her life, and was anK«?trT!lnt one shudders at. I 

The English authorities on such a cnso are all in favor of the.appellant. 

«.r?T ; 2? -l"'"'"" ''^'™ •*' •"'•'A'* ^^'"''ft »"d where he had>v 
.. 7; J ! ' ^ •^" "*"'*"■ ~™P««»«*«on foR the inoonvenienoe, the lo» 

,, oj t"no «od the labor of travelling bact, bceause theae are direct oorisequcnce 
J)f the wrong done. But if ho ia foolhardy enough to jump off without wait- 
^^ ing for the tram to atop he doea it at his own risk and for this, his owd groag 7 

unprudenoe. he can blame nobody but himself." 

Vide also, Am. & Jflng. RaUroad oases, Vol XIII., page 6 

Buriington A Nort hern R. R. Co..v8 Rafmnn^ - ? 



q - .^.. .11 IL V « ;* • ' Yy^^?-***T'"°""^ * " tto flaw nf William s^B^ 
!«-. ^. « p^. «. K. ca«» Vol. XV^^MOa. An action was dismissed 



;.^-: 



3-^*'-.V'm" 



Jt4 



COUU DU BANC DK LA nKINE, 18M. 






TfciCMiril 00 d«murror whoi^ It appflorod tqcldant h«pp«n«d lo • ofciW «iid««iorlog to J«dip 

ThsHupraiuo Court of th« UdIuxI Sttt4M in Ui« rtportt VqI. 114,10^*'' 
«aM of Hoofl«ia TO. (Jliloago, Milwaukoo A 8i Paul tiy'fio.'y p. «1B, h*W M^ 
folio wn : 

" Wh«r« ft p«riion, in » ilelgh dr»frn ^7 "«• ho""** O" • **<P"' '^** •pprotoh 
" ing ft croMioK of ft railroftd tfftck, with which ho Wftft fiiniUftr, coold hftw M«n 
" • coming trnirK during it* progrwn through ft diiUoo* of MMOty rod* fVom 
" the crowiiiti if lie had looked from ft pint tt any di^-Uno* within 600 f<i«t 
" from tb« oronMinx and wit« ^truok by thu train at the or«>aRiDg and injarad h« 
" waa guilty of contributory nofrliminoo, ovco though the train waa not a ragular 
•'oni', and. wai running at ft hi^h raU) of Kpocd, and did not »top at a dapot 70 
" rods from tliu crowing in tho <liroition from Which tha train came, and jlid not 
" blow n whiiitlo or ring a bell betwoou tlio depot and tho oroaaing," Thia ia 
only carrying out the rule that people muat uae ordinary oara.and Tigilenof. 

Oq tboae facta it waa proper for tho trial court to dire<^ a ^d|ct for the 
••dofendanl^" . ^^u 

Id the following coaca, Dnmont & Ijrow Orloana R'y Oo'f, 9 Loula Ann 441 
tod 6 Oray 64, where pnaaengera were injured in getting off eara while in 
motion tho oouita held they could not rccofer. These are cited in " RighU 
and Wrongs of a travollor,'* p. 36. 

The Knglish authorities contain no report of a case like the preaont one. 

But the governing principle, is laid down in Ilodges^on Railways, 6th Edi- 
tion, p. 621, as follows: 

" In all casea, of nogligcnoe, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff will 
disentitle him to riecover. That is, if tho plaintiff omit to tike such ordinary 
eare as would have avoided the eonscquoncea of tho negligence of the company 
or their servantfi, tho liabilities <^ tho company for such liogligenoe is extin- 
guished. U is not, however, sufficient, in order to exempt thoT company IVom 
--responsibility, to show that tho party injured did his own ^t to onntriWte to 
the injury, but it mqst be shewn that he did not use ordina/y care totavoid the 
oonsequenoo, of tlie ncgli«enoc of the company. Tho contributory negligence of 
achildh.is the same cfcot of diHeutitlioj; him to maintain an action as tho 
oontributory negligence of im adult.' • J ' 

In Siner's case, 4th Ex. 1 17. Whore some of the oars of a train overshot a 
platform and a paasenger without ar-kinpf to have tho troio backed, and without 
eommunioating with the train men, jumped down and'thiffl assisted his wife 
and she sprwnod her knee, the Court held she couldMot recover as the "acei- 
^dent was entirely the result of hor own acts." Th«r|6 are similar dooisions in 
the same sooae. .,^ ,g / 

L'intimo pretend ; r:- — ^^. — _ :. /y ': /._„-._: _-^_ 

On pent raiKohnublement arriver ik h coia^io^i que le train a ttoppi torn- 
plitement au pont, oomme I'affirmont Lawreneo k Virginie Lareau. S'il y a 
eo faute de la part de cette derniAre, cettefaute jtst excusable, puisqne le eonvoi 
n'^tait ^en mouvomei-t, ousi p«u, qu'ellr«)»ait jtisteTaisou de oroire quW 



/ 



.,/ 



^ 



(f 



COUR D0 BANC D£ LA lUfiUlK, 1886. 



885 



•rrltnll. Ao rtito, en tuppouat qu'll y aarait ta IknUi ck i* p«rt d« Virginlt Tl.« U««««l 
I-»r«au o«lii oonatitu« ui> oaa d« f.uto ooutmunO at pnrtant |a quaition aal da*'""""* "•■■ 
Ufoit qui dea daux a lo plua ooutribu^ A la fautg j autrooMol qmI aal raatauf " ''•^•• 
prinoipnl da I'ftooidanl ? , \ 

Void ano oowpagnia qui aninprend do tranfportar, moyannant flnaaoa, dat 
poaaagarii qui a rt^ daa ootrois Ju gouvornoniont ot qui doU, dana I'oiorcwi 
do a«i darolris.donoar aatiaruotion ou public. Far l» ioi ol par aok an^aKatuouia 
olla oat Unuo d'arrfltor aux Rnroa pour y ddbarquor U» paaaogora. Hlia na U 
f.ulm alio inanquo done i^ .ou dovolr. Oi^ na p«uk pM pr<iauniar qa'oB 
«ooid«nt aurniyurvauM ai Virginia Lorauu avait au I'opport'anit^ do proadra tarra 
k Tandrolt v^lu. 

Si la fauto cat oommuDo aui deux portloa, il faut rooherohor, dilODl laa autaui^ 
quolie oat la partlft^ui cat principnlowoot on lauto, ct enHuito il y a Uau d'appU- 
quer b oooiponaatioa dea dommagoa, ea faiaant aupportar Ala partia U plua 
ooup(»blo do nigUgoDoo la plua forto part do la raaponanbilittf. 

C"oStoott« dootrifto quo Itt Cour Infiiriouro a nppliqud at noua la orojoaa 
partUitoniont juridlquo. . 

LAapuniiBl : '• U aoulo oonooMioo quo noua puiMiona fkira, o'aat dono do 
pormottro au tribunHux do mcldror lo« domitflgoa dan* eo oaa (oH II y a fkuU 
do la part du " liW) auivont lea circooatonooH. Vol. V., Nog. 29 et 30. 

AuDBVot Rau: "II ou rdHulto ouooro qu'oa no poutcowild.Sror eommt 
" qua8i.d<5lit, uu fait qui n'a portd auoun pr<5judico i^ autrui, qui par ^uilod'uno 
" fauto, imputable A la poriionuo qui a <Jprouv<$ co prdjudioo. Lomqu'U y a au 
" faute, taat do la part do Tautour d'uu fuit, quo do la part do ool4i aaquol aa 
I ftUj mm du dommag^^ la quoatioa oat do mvt^T, a'il y a lieu \ la reapouao- 
P»W, et la fixation do rindomnitd qui pcut fitro duo, reito abaudoando A 
'M'arbHrogedujuge." Vol. IV.§440, p. 785. ; 

Labombime, 80U8 rartiolo 1383 du Coda Napoldon, No. 30, a'oxprimo oom-' 
we suit ; « 

" L'impnidenoo et la fauto do ia partie I<i8<ie no aont o«pondant point dana toua 
"tea 000, do naturo & ddcharger do touts renpousabilitd I'autour du fait. 
'I G'est 00 qui orrivo lorsquo lo delit ao rattache 4 uno ipfraotion, do la part da 
" CO dirnior, aax lois et rdglements qui lui fuisuient un dovoir do prondro dana * 
" nnjinttfrflt pfiblic, certaiuea mesorea do prdoaution et do prudonao. " 

lA Oour d'A|)p€l a ddoidd dana la causo do Wilson v». Lo Grand Trono (Deo - 
" Cour d'Appol, Vol. IL, p. 131) : « Thot the accident ocourod through thiw. 
"gross negligonoo of the employeos of the KospondenU in not ringing the boU 
" and sounding tho whistle, as they ought to do," malgrd lo fuit que Wilson traver- 
salt la voio, oe dont on hii roproohait: Ioi I'obligation du oonduoteur d'arrflter ~ 
i la station n'est-olle pas encore plus dvideato,— aa fuute grossidro en n'arrfltant . 
paa n'estr^llo paa plus manifeate encore que do n'ovoir paa sound la cloche ou fitit ' 
ente.n**4o sifflet ? Nous trouvons que la fauto, dans lo oas actuol, est bion plus 
lourdo que dans lo oas de Wilson. ' ^ ,, 

.1 j'j--"^*^" '^''<>°'">^'«'°«°> pr^tondre que l^tiintplo fait d'ewaTwr do dnatfen. 

-«rei!8ro6atti,Tdr8que oeuxmi sont arrtS^u suif le point d'j&tro ut6t6i^, va a^y 



^ 



"^7 



•■•/ 






236 



COUR DU BANC DE LA RBINE, 1886. 



fl. Larcau. 



The ^c^tral pI^teniCDt oxoD(!re.r " from rosponsubility the parly jthrough whose negligouoo and 
■ ■ " disregard bf the moHt ordiuury precaulipn the injury was iuflloted." 

A qui la faut« ? Telle est prosqu^ toujours la question qui s'dl^ve en ces sor- 
" tea d'uffuires, dit Douioloiube, Vol. 31, p, 434 ct suivuute. -Sana doutCi^ il bc 
" peut qu'il soit absolumcut oonstutd que lu faute touto cntidro est imputi^ble : 
' " Soit ii oclui qui a commis lo fait, d'oii le domma^o est rdsulttS, sans qu'au- 
"oune faute soit impntabld i!l celuiqui'a eprouvu c«»douiiuuge/ soit ill oului qui 
" a (SprouvtS lo dominagc, sans qu'fucuno fauto aoit iinnutablc ill oelui ^ qtii a 
" oommis lo fait, d'oii ce doniuiago est wSsultc. , "^ , 

"Mais ce ne soot pas la Ics om les plus ordiuiurcH. 

"Ce qui arrive, aucoatrairc, le plus Boavout, c'cst qiio de^ rocriiuiuations se 
"produisent dc partet d'uutrc t , -■ 

"Jit alors, nous nous trguvons en prdscncc dftcatte thins : de la faute com- 
" mune qui joue en eflFet daus notre sujet uii grand role." No. 503 : 
^, "Ce n'est pas que ccttc th6se pr<5scntc o« droit unc dIfficulttS bieu stSricuse. 

" Et d'abord, <^videuinicnt, decoque oului qui u <Sprouvi5 Ic domiuage aurait 
" Itti-mOme commis une faute, une iuiprodence ou uue ni^gligoiice il iie saurait 
" nc rdiiulter que celui, pnr la faut^, i'iinprudcuce ou la ne^ligouao duqucl so 
" domwagea eu lica,fioit affranchi do toute responsabilitii. 

"Nous trouvons aussi ce priacipo oonsicrd par un arret de lu Gourde Cassa- 
" tion ; arrOt d'autant plus notable qu'il a cass(5 un arret reudii eu sons coatraire, 
"par la Cour d'Auiicns, dans cotte niati6ro, oik guueraleiue<nt rhifluonec du fait 
" pr4domine. 

" Vu les articles 1382 ct 1383 du Code Civil ; " 

" Atteudu que ces articles ne liuiitent pas la res ponsabilit^ qu'ils prononoent 
" contre celui par la faute duquel il est urrivg au soul cas oil cette faute a ^t^ 
" la (Sause unique immediate de Paooident projudiciable ;^Que si la personne 
" les^e a commis elle-mdme une improdeuce, cette oircoustance peut sans doute 
', autoriscr les tribunauz &,r6duire le obiffre desdommages int^rSts, mais qu'elle 
" ne Bsurait affrancbir do toute responsabilit^, oelui, dont la faute a contribud, 
" dans une mcsuro quekonque, i, determiner I'acoident ou H le rendre plus 
"grave. ." (20 aofttl879, Marquant, Day. 1880-1-55.) 

A ohacun done sa part de responsabilit^ ; c'est au magistrat qu'il appartient 
de determiner cette mesure et cette proportion suivant les circonstanoc^ si 
varices dcs diff^renttis espi^ces qu> peuveut se presenter., jg 

C'est li le point de fait. ' | 

Parmi les cas decides en France nous oiterons I'espd^e sikivante rapport^e par 
Demolombe (loc., oit p. 436),, ilt cau^-de son analogic. II s'agit d'un acci- 
dent de tramway. < . ' , " -■' - 

" Un homme tombe du haut d'^un ttamway et ae blesse mortellemciit. 

" Et une action en respoasabilite est form^e contre le conduoteor et «ontre la 
" Compagnie. 

<* Le voyageur, dit-on, ne serait pus tomb^, si le conduotear avait arrgt^ la 
" marcbe de la voiture, lorssqu'll plusieurs reprises, la demande lui en a 6t4 faite 
" Bans qu'il en ait tenu compte. On ajoute que la descente de la victima devait 




y,.i 






K, 



\ „ 



COUB DU BANC DE LA HEINE, 1886. 



r 



237 



(1 



<t 



^^ 6tro d ftutant plus diffioile et pirilleus?, que la voiture ^tait, contrairomoDt aux The CentnU 
^^ reglements, enoombr^o de voyagflure, k ce point qu'il y oii avait jusque ror io»'Vonnont R.R. 

marche-pied.. " A quoi leu d^fepdeun. rdpondent qui ni.te voyageur eat tomW H.Lareaii. 
/c est paroe qu il a Voulu desoendrif avant ({«o la vo^^jre fut arrfit^e ct que Ba ' . 

chute est le rdsultat de I'imprudenoe, qu'il a lui-mSmo personnelloment com- 
"mise; . - - 

C'<3tait pr^oisdment Tespdoe, sur laquelle a m rendu Tarrfit de cassation, que 
I nous ayous c\i4, et d'oii i> r^sulte que la fauto a ete considdrda oomme coin- 
^ mune, cii co sons que si, en effet, o'est la faute de oonduoteur, qui en n'awetant 
^^ pas SH voiture, mulgrd la domande qui lui en dtait faite, que I'accident est ' 

atrivd il est justo ausside reconnaitro quo le voyageur a oommis lui-mame une 

iniprudenca en descendant pendant qu'elle 6tait en marohe. ■ - ~- 

"La faute dtnit done, en efifct commune, on du moins, rimprudcnce du 
voyageur devait-elle avoir pour rdsultat d'att^nuer la responsabilitd qui devait 

"atteindre la Compagnie des tramways, par suite del-infraction, que son prdbos<5 
avait commiseaux me sureff presowtes dans I'intdrfit dela sdourftd publique. " 

DoRioN, C. J.,- said the judgment could not be sustained. It was not be- ^ ' 
cause the train did not stop that the plaintir's daughter was injured, but because I' 

she had committed the imprudence of jumping off a train in motion. She might 
have had a recourse against the Company for carrying her beyond her destination ' 
but she could not recover damages for an accident which resulted directly from 
her own imprudence and rashness. 

Ramsay, J., said that an attempt had been made to show that the train ap, i 

peared to be stopping, and, consequently; that there had been an invitation, as it 
were, to the passenger to alight. .The facts, fapwever^ did not support this pre- 
tension, and the action must fail. 

fit. 'i All Judgment reversed. 

CAMrcA,CA«pZca«,ira««fcJWcA(j««, attorneys for appellant. v > • 

iy»*wnrf Z-areaw, attorney for respondent. t . 



• COUR DE REVISION, 1836. - 

^ „ MONTREAL, 30 JANVIER 1886. 

Presents: Les honorables juges DoHEBiy, PAPiNiSAU et Lobangeb. ^ 
-^ ■ JOSEPH CHRISTIN, 

■0'''-v ' ■ ' '■ ' • .DiMANpiua; 

" vs. ■ . . 

DAME PRAN9OISB ARCHAMBAULT at. AL., 

-X. Que la Conr peut pennettre d'apposer doable timbre sur nn billet non revfitu, 
E M *!'"P» ^"i* oonfecUoD, des. Umbres voulos par la loi, lorsqu'U est d£montr6 

par la preufe que o'est seulement par erreur que le portear a omis de mettie 
i lee timbres requis (46 Tict, ch. 31, sec. 1). - 

2. Que la mention fidte, & rinventaire,'d'un billet an nombte des dettes passives de 
la 8ncoeMion,e8t nne reconnaissance de la dette et une renonciation an 
Mn6fice de la prescription, surtont 9'U appert que les hfirttiers ont 8ien6 le dit 
Inventaire. 

Te^effaia^P^BirBiiri^ddfende^ 
faiseur d'ua billet promissoire consent! par oe dernier, le vingt^t-ua septembre 



JdqA: 




■.i 



238 



COUR DB REVISION, 1886. 



J. Ohrtetin mj] huji qq^i Boixanto-seiBc, pour la sopme de quatra cent soixante-diz-neuf 
Dame F. Ar- piastres et oioq ceatins en faveur du demaodeur. ^. 

ebambauU j^^ vingt-trois mai, Miobol Deaautels ddc^da ^JMontr^al sans avoir pay^ le 



•tal. 



moDtant da billet ea question au dontandeur. 

Le diz-neyf jaillet mil Jiuit cent quatref^ingt-douz, Ics d^fondeurs h^ritiers 
da dit Michel Deaautels ont proc^d^, jt I'inventaire des biens de ce dernier devant 
Mtre. Ferrfult, notaire. \ 

A oet in^entairo^ qu'jls ont sign^, les litSritiers ont reoonnu que la suooossion 

da dit Michel Deaautels ^tait endett^e envcrs. le dcmandcur en la somm^ de 

^ quatre cent soixaate-diz-neuf piastres et cinq centins, montant du dit billet ct de 

plus du montant des int^rdts accrus sur le dit billet a raison de sept pour cent 

par annde. / .. , 

Les d^fendeurs plaident &oette action d'abard par une exception p<5remptoire 
' en droit bae^e sur le fait que les timbres voulus par la In n'auraient pas ^t^ 
apposes sur U billet en que3tioa avant Tinstitution de ractton. 

Le demandeur s'apercevant pour 1^ premiere fois del cette irr£gularit(§ fit 
imnj^diatemcnt motion pour obtonir la permission d'apposer les timbres tel que 
reqiiis par la loi. \ 

- LarCour oonsiddrant que par la section premiere du chapitrcv vingt-et-un des 
Statuts du Canada do mil huit cent quatre- vingt-trois, 46 Vict'>ria,"ir%8t^d4cr/ 
que dans toute action alors pendante ou qui sera intont^e a ravenrr, la Cour ou 
le jage pourra admottre en preuve cbmme ^tant un instrument xWluMe, tous 
billets promissoires non timbres faits avant le quatridme jour de mws mil huit 
cent quatre- vingtdeux sans le paiement du double droit prescrit par la section 
13 de I'acte pass^ en la 42e ann^e du rdgne de Sa Majesty actuelle, ohapitre 17, 
pourvu toutefois qu'il soit prouv^ et d^iuontr^ a la satisfaction de la Coar ou 
du jage quo les circonstatioes et les faits sont tels que le porteur aurait eu avant 
le dit quatridme jour de mars le droit de les rendre valides, en vertu des disposi- 
tions de la dite section on y apposant des timbres rcpr^sentant le double droit. 

Consid^rant qa'il r^sulte de cette disposition de la loi que c'est au juge 

pr^aidant & I'enqndte qu'il appartient de decider si un billet non timbr^ pent 

Stre admis en preuve ct que pour cette raison il oonvient de suspendre I'adjudl- 

, cation sur la motion du demandeur jusqu'^ I'enquSte. ' 

Reserve la decision de la motion du demandeur jusqu'^ Tadjudioation sur la 
6au!e. i. 

"I Les d^fendeurs invoqudrent la prescription du dijt Billet et ie d^fant de 
timbres sur icelui, et ni^rent avoir jamais reconnu le billet de mani&re i. en 
intcfrompro la prescription et notamment que la reconnaisaanoe faite dans 
I'inventaire ^tait interruptive de la prescription. 

Le demandeur r^pond que la reconnaissancc^poii4e danft'l'lnventaire est une 
renonciation au bSn^fice de la prescription. - . -.ll : . 

Les-deux seules-questions qui se pr^scntent dans cette cause sont de savoir si 
le demandeur ^tait justifiable d'apposer le double timbre et s'il y avait eu bonne 
foi cliez lui dans son d^fuut de le fair6 ? 

lift ecconde qnestion qui 66 pfSMilte est de savoir si la mention faite ii 
rin7cntiirc du billet qui fait la base de cette action et entree au nombre des 



>^ 



v^-. 



r ..#;:' 



COUE DB BBVISrON, 1886. 



239' 



et«l. 



Jjocott*, Glohmtkt/, "BisaiUon et Brotseau, arocats^ demandear. 
Augi et La/ortune, avooats des d^foodeurs. ^ 



dettos paBsives de la suocossion ost une reconnaioanoo de la dette ot una renon- J. UbriatiB 
oiation au b^ndfioe do la preaonption. - ' '.' •* 

Le demandcur soumot quo la mention de la dette du demnndeur dana I'invQn- "'"aaibi^u'' 
Uire Bigntf par lea b^ritiers n'a dft ae faire.qu'aprfis un examen attonlif da titro 
de ordanoe oA los h^ritiera out pa jugor a'ila devaient oa ae devaient pas'ae 
rcndre reaponsables de cette detfe, 

Cetto mention indique quo lea h^ritiera ont volontaircment voulu acquit^ 
cette dette do la auoooasioD et que partant ila ont renonotf i la preaoriptiun. 

Les htfritiers n'auraieut .pu donner une reoonnaiasapoe plus oxpresao et plua 
compldto que cello qui est faito on %ientionnant la dette du demandcur dana 
I'acto da dix-neuf juillet mil liait cent quatre-vingt-doux oH il a'agisfiait pour 
cux d'^tablir r<«tat des forces paesivea et actives do la succession du dit Michel 
DosauteU et se rcndre compte de la position dans laquelle ils ee trouTeniicfit a'ila 
I'acceptaiont. ^ • \X^ 

lis I'ont accepts avcc scs bdodficos ot "sos obligations paroe qu'ils ont jugd que 
raccoraplissement de ces dernidres leur laisserait enoore des avantagcs. 

Fjcfo Troplong, vol. 2, No. 615. - ' 

Laurent, vol. 32, Nog, 120 et suivants. ^ \ 

Aubry et flau, vol. 2, page 355. 
Sirey 1863, Part 2, page 143, Vienauci vfl. Pi^teb. 

Sirey, O. K., 2248, No. 28, No. 15. ■ \ .^. , 

Siroy, «. N., 2274, No. 8. * ' A 

Voici lo jugcment de It) Cour (Caroii, J.) : ' ' 
La Cour, etc. * '* 

Considtfrant que le demandcur reclame $479.05 pour le montant d'un billet 
provisoire sign^ par Michel Desautels, fils, 4 Montreal, le 21 septembre 1876, en 
f aveur du d^roandeur : y ' • 

Consid^rant que la ddfenderesse Dan^e Archambault alldgue dana sa defense 
<iue cette action ne pout pas 8tre maintenue, parceque le billet sur lequel elle est 
bas^e n'cst pas revdtu des timbres requis ; 

Consid^rant que los autres.d^fendeurs prdtcndent que ce billet est present et 
que la or^noe da do'mandeur est dteinte ; ' 

Considtfrant que 16 demandcur a prouv« les allegations ossenticlles de sa 
declaration et que teas les dSfendours ont reconnu devoir le montant demands 
en capital et interfit par I'iav^ntaire en date du 19 juillet 1882 ; 
frt, Considtfrant qi^il est en preuve air dossier que c'est seulement par erreur que, 
le demandeur a omis de mettre lea timbres requis sur le dit billet, et qu'il n'^t 
pas, en consequence, neoessaire d'y en apposer maintenant ; > 

Benvoie toutes les defenses des defcndeurs et les condamne k payer au 
demandeur la sonime de $479.0ii, aveo interfit & sept pour cent, du 23 septembre 
1877, aveo toaa les d^pens distraits 4 Messieurs Laooste, Globonsky, Bissailloa 
et Brosseaa, avocats du demandeur; et le demandeur est condamne jl payer aa 
defendears les frais'de sa motion pour amender. 

Jagement coafiriaei: _ 



<«> 



# 









} 



../'.■ 






>«^: 



2*0* 



Presents 



..,-:■- ^ - - ,..-. r ./ -, ..." 

COUE DE BEVISIGN, 1886. . 

COUR DE RfiVISiON, 1886. 

^ MONTREAL, 31 3C&1 188ft, - \. 

Les LoDorabkB jugcs Johnson, Papineau ct Jsttt, 
" ' ' GVRILLE DUMONTET, '• *> 




DlMi^HDIDB; 



w». 



' ' '■' • ;' , fcUDGER DUMONTEt, , 

* ' . ,. ' DmHDica. 

Jvot -.r-Qobles mots suiviints contcnns dafis un testament : " donne et>ldgu«..J^ son 6pottz 
les argents et dcniers quelconqiies, tont en argent montip^ qu''eD billet do 

, - * banquea et autrtt- vttleurs queteonques," xomprennent les cr£,ance8 contrd des 
imrtlouliers appart^bant au (^stat^ur. > 



Les faits de la cause sont rqpport^s dnns le jugcment de la Cour Bup^rieti('«> 
(Matbieii,X), qui Bc lit commo suit ;-r- , * . 

Attendu qu^e seize juin mil huit cent' (rente-Bfipt,. par note pasf-d devant 
Mtre. Barbeau,- notair^, Elio Pnr^ a cotitraiotd mariageaveo Marie Hubert, par 
lequel oontratril fut etipultS qti'il o'y aurait point de coiAtnunautd entHs euz, et 
qu'ils Bcraicnt^supardsde bicns; qu(i. le niarjogo. fut dOuient c<Sldbr£ le diz-sept 
juin mil buit cent treote-sept; que la dite 'Murie Hubert est d^c<Sd^e le TiDgt- 
trois ao(lt mil buifcent .cinqnante-truis ; , . •• 

Attendu 'quo paij^son coiUcilp pass4 devant Mtre. <!R 0>- Bureau, notaire, le 
TiDgt'sept uWil mil buit 'cent quarante-eept, la diteJVIarie Bebert a donn^ et 
\6gn6 d, son ^pouz Elie Pare, les argents et denieri quelconques, tanien argent 
iDonnoy^ quLen billets tie ba/i(|ue et autres Valfcu^ quelcon'quea ■ qiui se troupe-, 
raienf^l^tre ct appartcnir -X lit ditc Marie H^beYl, au jour et henre de son d^^, 
i, quilque somme que le tout puisse se montcr, sans exception ni reserve ; pour 
appartedtr vn toute* propri^td au dit Elie Pard, et la jduissanee et UBufruit de 
tous ses biens meubles et immeubles quelconques, propjc^s* acqtiSta et oodquSts 
qu'elle ddlaissserut^ it son ddoSs, qui setrouveraient bis et situds dans leallmites 
qu'aTaient.alors 111 paroisse de St.-Sdmi, seulcment, pour par le dit Elie Pard en 

, jouir a titre d'usufruit sa vie durant, pour les Bu^dits biena meubles et immeu- 
bles quelconques, proprcs, ac^Sts et conq^uCts aprds le ddcds dn dit EKe Pard^ 
jip^artenir et etre partagds par Ladger et Cjrille Dumontet ses deux petits-fils;/ 
pour par les dits Xiudgei^ et Cjrille Dumontet, aprds la dite jouisstinoe et' 
usufruit, en jbair,'use]; ct disposer en toute propridtd, sans ezceptio'n ni rdserve,. 
pe legs dtant fat toutefois a la charge par le dit Elie Pard derenoocer'^ tovup 
jButres droits, pretentions et hypotbdques qu'il dtait eo drQit d^ r^lamer par le 
contrat-de mariage fait entre lui et la dite Marie Hubert; -' **- , 

Attendu que' le demandeur, par soq actiqin, reclame du ddfendeur, la somme' 
de trois eeots quatre-vingt-dis-neuf piastres, pour moitid do la valeor des'e£fet» 

".mobiliers doat le dit Elie Pard a eu la jouissance, en yerta du dit codicile, et 
pour* moitid de quatre ordances'que le demandeor alldguo' que I9 dit Elie Pard 
a peryu appartenant -X la^eucbession de la dite Marie' Hubert'; - ' , , 

Attendu que la dit.ilemnpdflurj d p l ame.- Oflt t e B Q mm o :du ddfoadetir...en Tortu dn 

cutttionnement eonscnti par Ic dit defcndeur le vingt-deuz juillet mil bait cent 



J^\ 







CQUR DE REVISION, 1886' 



241 



(•> 



quatro.vi.igt.un, por Icquel lo dit d^feiidcur se Wuit portrf Ruwnt du dit Elie 0. Damontot 
Far© ; quo ce deruicr jouiii.it en bon p^i e do laiuillo du« bicu« roiuTObant le lew , n "" . » 
«j-de«8UBUjeutioand:' t . i . . s L. DumonteL 

■ f ' ' • 

Atteiidu^uo ledoJou-fcur a pluido ii outto action qu'il n'dtuit p;.s tJiliTde ' 

reuibourser uu dcmandtai- uuul^^o jiaitic, >i||« ditcH cicNinces <|.a avuiiuit <St<S ' %" •' 

W^udoH ttu dit Paio, par )c dit,codicilc, ot i, JTil i.'^iuit tcuu que do j.roduir« k% 
,cffct8 uiob.lior* %uds4K.r le dit codicilo,"aulro8 qiie k>» cieauccH misditfe« qui 

T!. ^uicmt puH^^ld ddterioioi p;.r l'uMi;ic, et qui cxi»t;,iei.. oncoio c.i ...tare \ 
€onMdei-aiit que ,.ur ciw oxiuessiona " les uifteutH et doiiier.s quuieo.Kiucs, tant 

;ou ur^tnt -ttiounoye^qu'eu billeis do b^i.quc, et'aui.es vaK^ui-s queic..iqucs, qui 
se trouvefaieut CtSc et t.i.,.ai.ehir u.la diio D.mo Muiie Jleberl, iu. jo.K et bcure 
de sou decOs, Aquclques hoiii.ue.s que le loftt p.ri,so so ii.oi.toi^ xu.s exemption nl ^ 

reserve," la testa tiico puiait avoil•»^ro.^^ coiiipiendic Icij Kon.lfres d'ai,i;,i.t qu'eilo/. . 

liouvait avoir en luui.m en aiKOi.t iiio-n..<f|,S du cnvbi.lleis do iaiiquo, ct les 
Homines d^jr-ent qaii pourniicut«lui <3tic dues lorn <Je son ddcis j'v ■ ^' V 

Coiisiddrunt quo le .sens e.-des«u», meutior.n(5 des dHesexprobsionsvpiCatt '^lu8 ' 

. spec.alenient it%uli,er de.s niOts ; " et aulrCs valeurs quelcojquos " qui ,rauf"aient 
pas do wgniGcMtiiiu, Bi wr'iw dwait les eiUcndrecomme indiquanfl^wdhDces; • -< 

„ Coiisideraut, que- jmr. les t«i'iiies d'u drt codicilc-du.vingl-sepfc avril .mil'huit ' 
cent qnaianie-se^, la 'dit» J)a,..e Ma.rie llqb.'rt a donne i son fcpoux Mie Pard, ' - 
toutes lo8 criSaiiees qui luiappaliiwi'diaii,^ V ji.ur et bcurc dc Bon fldec^H, et que . 
lo dt'lendeur no peut^Clio teuu> pyycr-.au dtuiand^w la nioitit^ dcs'ditos 
errfuiiees: -v v * ^ "^ . 

Considdrant quft- par ju^eniciit doWic Cour rendi^le trcnte no^mbre mil •' 
lu.t cent (fuatrc^iiigt, dansyna causft portant lo niimdro quatre-vingt-seize, dans "/ , 
la<^uellele ditKliqP^ird d^ait AinUndour coulre lo dit OVwllfe Duu.outot.il a dtd 
)>;d (jue le dit ElitJ ^»ard ayait aoeeple le. lcg^f|«t en s* favcarpaV fa liite Marie . ' ' 
H6b^rt pur lo oodi^ile 'qu'dle ^,f«»it:lc^ingt-scpt av/ilitaii huii'cent quarante- , 
jSept devalil Mtr^. J-. 0. BtiRjau ; , '' " 

Attoridtf qwple (Jit ddfendeur ji le vinj;t juin mil huit cent quatrC-viDj^-trois, 
offert au delnaodeuc un> somiye do ceui piistrcs ooiiime reprdsentant la vale'ur P '. 
dps effets aiobUiertfaontloditEIiePard 4e«ru8ttfruit^nVortu'dtt dStiestament 
, 'tit qui n'etjiieat pa^djs^rus par rusage.'et'quifeistaient enoore, lors du ddcds 
du djt Elie Par4,>etr"4u'il a par ^di plaidoyer renouveld ses offre.s, ct ddpoaS le 
iDQntaut 'en Cour"; * • ' ' ., • 

' Considdraot qte\ lo ddfondeurV prouv<S^u€ les effets mobilier? qVii n'avaient - 

^ dtd, wnsooirnds ^r I'usnge ne valaieut pas au^dde^i du dit Eiio Pard, date 
de I'extinotiqn du dit usjifruit, plus quel© uiontant'par ki offert }iu dit deaian- 

Considdrani que les offres Aile» par le dgfeudeur sont suipSsantes ; . -^ 

Cbasiddranli que l|a^4dientse» da dU.ddfendeur eont bien fondees, et que , 

I'action du dit dtorakndl^r est lual fondde ; ' • r U 

A maintenu et maiDtient les dSfensea.du dit defendour, et a ddnnd et donne " "^ 
A oe dernier acte des offres de la somme de cent six piastres qu'il a faites au 

fetHiffu Ju pe tto Q oor po ur . 1m di|.de i uana(}u r , sn v o»lf 1* somme de cent piaatrea - ' " 



«r 






w 



^ 



242 



COUK DE REVISION, 1886. 



«r 



orDumontet reprdsontant la Tnleur dsa dits bi6ns oonimo susdfit, 6t oelle do six plaatres pour • 
L.Dumontet. infdrOt, et a ddclurd ot dMaro les ditos offres bonnes et Talable?^ et a ronvoyd et 

renvoie I'uction du deinandour i»veo ddpons, dUtraits H MeaBieure Pagnuelo, i 

* TajlloD et Gouin, aWat du ddfcodour, 

' £q rd^ision le dcmandour a dit : le ddrendeur par son plaidojer soutient quo 

* les ordaooes oiodcssus mcntionDdoasotit comprises donslc legs en propridtd. La 
Cour do-preuii^ro insUlDoe a niaiutouu cetto prdtontion du d^endeur. Nous 
BOuniLCftons qu^il y a 1& erreur. 

• " Dans io cas d'^nunidration, il fuut appTiquer la r^gle incfuiio uniut fit 

\^ ' txchuio altertut, l ^ > ," 

.y..> •' Y n-t-il inclusion des orfancos centre dos partiouliers dans rdaumtfration 

^ J- qui prdcide? Nous ^uvons fans hdsifcr diro quo les expressions argents et , 
denien guelcOnquet tant en ardent mcknoyi jit'-fen iillcts de banque no com- ' 
|)rennent c^rtainement pas des ordaoces centre .(|es particuliera. ■ Pour soutenir ^ ' 
• , CO qui a 4t6 ddoidi^ par lo jugement eu premifiro instanoo il faut dire que les 

mots : ^< au<re« vaZ«ur< ^ue/cont^'uet, ont dteudu cetto diiumdration de manidre 
& inclur^ les creances. II y a une r<^gle bien dtablio quo dans une dnumdratioa 
les mots etfOutr^i ouet autret giniraUment quelmnquea doivoot toujours soua- * 
entejadro los expressions: de mime^ mature, eotro autres autoritds sur cetto' 
question, nous citons : % 

Laurent,'%l. 14, No. 166. - 

Ai'gent CO qa'il oomprend: « que comprend le legs do I'argontquo le testateur ift 
" possedcra d. sa mort ? dans lo lanjgage usuel I'argcnt qu'on p«d8ude, a'entond 
" uniqueinent des esp^ces monnoydes et'des billets do banqucj qui tiennent lieu ' 
/ " d'argenr, piiisqu'ils circulcnt comme" tela et peuvent etro imm^diatement 
/ • " convcrtis en cspooes, Le Idgatairo h'a dono pas; droit aux ordances; les 

/ " ord^n'ccs tcnd^nt & mettro de I'argent daoB la main (Tu crdanoier, mais elles^ne , 

" sont pfts do Vorgeat," " ' ■« 

\Eedi5eld on Wills, vol. 2, p. 118. 
^ " fhero is an important distinotion in principles and which is adverted to in 

" mardy of the oases, between an enumeration of, particulars either preceded or ■ ' 
"followed by general words, whether the enumeration is by way of limitanon 
"M hf\vid« licet or otlnuJiP'^!*!^ form of expression, showing to what the 
'' generar words were int6oaed to apply and enumeration of partibulars which.^ 
" is regarded as imperfect, and a toere approximation of specimen of the whole, 
"the general words being intended to embrace everything coming within the 
*' range of their ordinary import.'' , ' ;I; 

N( Guyot, vol. 10, p. 436, vo. Legs. * . , 

" Si jo Tdguo mes vins en bouteilles, oouz de td et tel ooteau, et touto3..1e{f' 
'" ehpBe$ do^B que j'ai, ma libdralitd no comprendra des choses donees que 
V '; ;'.""' " celles qui servant k la boisson; la mention que j'ai faito d'abord de^ins eo : , 
" boi^teilles, ezplique ainsi ma volontd I On voit que ee texte attribue au 14bp 
c< d'espdoe, place avant celui de genre, la vertu d'en restreindre I'dtendue, car, , 
'Vsuivant a. 1 de ja m8me loi, le legs jgdndriquo dea eho8e$ doue€$ comprenJt 



" non-Mulement toutesles boi&ons, mfisTcncore tons les fraits de oette quality." 
Bacon's Abridgment, vol. 5, p;<l32, verbo legaicies. 



COUB DB KB 



tB^SIOJf, 



1886. 



243 



« » ff*!L^*" * "" ''"'"'^ *** ^^ nie«j/»U his good^ ohatteb, howehoW 0. 
^^ •Jttff, ftiroituw, and orA«. «A,nj,, which th«n wero or should bo in hia honso i 
^ ■» the Uoe of bit death ; and, lomo titue after, diod, loaving aboak £265 ia 
^ ^tdj ipoDey in the house, it was decreed that this ready nvnej did not pass, 

for bj the words, other thing$, shall be intended things of Uke nature and 

•pooies of those before mentioned." * , ^ 

Roberts on Wills, rol. 1,. p. 422. 
^ " No^ will this word, although followed by tho words of what nature and kind 
•«oew, always embraeed the whole poreonafTyopcrty df tho testator; it U 

often confined to suoh parUoulars only as arJ ejutden* generit with Obrtain 

toaltetiMd ^things before enumerated." T 

On demandera pent^tre, mais, quelle signification donoesTons anx expres-" 
sions et autree valeun quekonquee fnoaa soumettooii q^e d'aprds fa rd-la 
J inoootpstable, qu'il faut somM.utendrq.</« mime nature, 9e» eVpreasions pcuvent 
8 aj>liquer h des valeurs ao porteur, teUcd que debentures d|i Gouvernomenf, 
dtfbe^tuws^unieipalos et autrea valeuni au porteur, des eor^'publics, etc , qui 
oens^Q^mment peutrent dtre oonsiddrdes l'<5quivalent des billeta do banquon 

Antorit^ Ju c^^fendeur : 0. 0. 395, 454 et suinntes ; 14 Laurent, No. 163 • 



DifmonttI 

Vi.' 

Dumo^tel. 



Dalloi, TO. iBiens, No. 234 et suivants, 246, 248. 



) 



Oeofrion, Dorionet Rin/ret, aTOoata du demandcur. 
Pagnuelo, Taillon tt'douin, avopata du drfftqdeur. 

■ ■■■-,■-. V. . ., ,■ / —- y — ^ — .' 

SUPB|JIOR COURT, 1886. 

, ' ♦> MONTEBAL, MARCH 18T0, 1886. 

■.>■* "■ _;' ° .No. 1780. .. 

^ , ' Prtltent : P^BBTY, J. 

,!.> WILLIAM MoGOUIf, 



Jugcment oonfirmtf. 



n. 



PiAiarirr, 



V/ 



DSFIVDAST. 



V r JAMB8 PLBTOHBR, "^ 

.,,£// •. '•';"' ', ' ■ \ ■ UIFMDAST. 

H«u) ■—•KmX a stenogMpher ^gaged bj an aUmmj tl take' the'depositiona in a case baa 
, a direct action for tli^ rcteoTuy df bia fees against the part/ in whose bebalf the 
>> dfpbsitioaB were taken! ', ' 
.\ This was an action by a stenegrapher for. about $100 fees for taking depoai- 
Uons in a case in which PletoheV was plaintiff against the Exchange Bank.. The 
fees were not paid on thcf depositions, and 'they wore not filed. The iteno- * 
grapher brought .inaction for th^ amount against Fletcher, who pleaded that 
there was no lien de dr<nt betw^n him and the stenographer, bnd that he did not 
knftw him in.4bo mlittw. The question fas vHether the stenographer ha^ a 
direct action jigoinst tl^ party in whose belkalf t|B.depoiiitions were taken.' ^he 
XJourt is of opinion th/i§under tho^oircumstaifoeJ^thei action was well brought. 
The defendant's lawye^employcd-plaintiff, sndhe must be held responsible for 
the act of his agents; Judgment for the plaintiff for the fimount of hia account, 
with costs. ' ' .4 

Beique A Cb:, attorneys for Jilafntiff. , " 

Archambavlt de Ca., attorneys for defendant. 



X 



. V-"' 



if. 



244 



POtlCE COIJBT, 188C: 



POLICE COUliT, 1886. 

» . MONTREAL, JULY aiiT, W86. ' 

Present:: Mr. Justice DssNorEBS, P. M. ^ 

' ^ HOWARD COLLINS, "» 

ARB ■ 
^ f^ ' ' THOMAS R.ANDRR80N, 

Biii.D:-Th«t a deviation from.tlie voyage desoribeil In th^ shipping articled entered Into 
between the master of a vessel and the seamen engaged by him, tor tb«poj(ago 
renders the sliipping articles null , and releases, the teamen from their agreement. 
The complainant Collina, about fift|«jn moiiths ago, in.Noir Ydrk, engaged to 
serve as a sailor on board the " Asia,", whjijfi, it t»as understood, would sail to 
Shanghai, ChituL to the various |)ort« of ifl'e Chinese Sea, and as far as 72° north 
latitude and GT'^south latitude, thence to some part'in the United Kingdom or 
Europe, where Collins wa| to receive his digohargo. The contplninant contended 
that the trip to Montreal was a deviation fjroiu the voyage described in the ship- 
ping articles, whiolt prete^ision was sustained, by the Court. Judgnaent for com- 
plainant, awarding himhfis full pay, and a diHchargo IVom Anderson's employment. 

N. Dritcott, attopn'cy for comjtlainant. 
- CJ Zf. (Tef/tinfji*;' attorney, for respondent;' 



1!« V 



/' 



Present 



, COU^T OF REVIEW, 1886. 

MONTREAL, APRIL 8tb, 1886. 
No. 896. 

Johnson; J., Papineau, J., TAscBEniSAn, J. 

JA|»E8 OORISTLVB, 



PbAiHTirr; 



vs. 



% 



. P. N. LIZOTTE, . . -, 

.Dependant. 

O., by his act'jon sought to obtain a Joint and several condemn&tion against L. and bia 

wife P., who wen eommurii en bieni, and tbe jadgment was rendered in that form. 

' . Pendente titei^., obtained a ^;>a»>a<ion (fer6i«ns, and put in ^ ^ditionalJlea to 

, the effect, anil the fact was admitted. t*fy 

IIiLD, in Review, that the Jadgment was bad, and must be reversed! ^ 

Johnson, J. — Thia'isi a case where a matter of form ban been o 

an aeoideht owing probal^ly to the neglect of th^ party to bring the ; 

notice of the Court below; but as the forme often involves tbe/oi 

to notice it, now that it is put before us for the express purpose, / It is a case 

in which a jpint and several condemnation was sotigbt against s husband and 

wife communs en Mens, and the judgment' was rendered !» t}iip form. Bat 

pendente lite, the defendant. Dame Ceoile Plantc, ^t a teparation de bient, and 

fn^ia tta additional plea setting up that fact, which sufficiently appears, and 

was, 'in fact, admitted; but the plaintifif oontends that this sepai'ation, not 

hnving hnan eijBtfnted, is without offect. Porbapa i o; but the point he r o is not^ 



irlooked— 
tint lo the, 
r, we have 



COURT OF R^IEW, 1880. 





th« effioaoy 6f the •epantioD, bat th^faot itnelf, because, ifa wiftoaD only be Jf 
bound with her huabund nacbrnmune, and she ia not commune, but has never- p 
theless been oondemned aa compiune, the, judgment is bad. Of eourao, if ^ ' 
▼alid jadgmeat on ita face wore being executed aKainst the defendants, and the 
wife were to aet up her separate estalc, the question of the effioaoy of her separ- 
ation without eieoutionof it would arise. But hero wo have only to do with 
the point whether the oondouination of a married wonian as commune lohen the 
»« not commutU ia a good j^dgmetit. There was a more iiiyjortant point than 
that raised in the case, via,,. whether the dtfondaiit could bo condemned at all 
aa a marchande publique, aud at the sauio tiiuo in purtuorship with her hus- 
band: but that question was no^ argued; 'and need not bo considoredi at all 

the first point—the point of fojrm boiug bufficleut to disi)os« of the case, Judg. 1, 
ment reversou. . ; 

/>uflfop ({r Z/^an, attprneya for 'plaintiff. *' 

/>avi<2<& (7o., attorneya for defendant. • • , 



. CorlstiM 
vs. 

N. Liaotta. 



#; 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1880. 

MON^nBAWMAY 31.1886. 

y ■ No#62o. 4|rv, 

pi'esenti'jonNBdN/jETT* and Papineau, J.J. 
THE ONTARIO OAR CQ^y 



^ 



Tg. 



THE QDEBEO CENTRAL RAILWAY CO. 



Plaintipp ; 



. DngnoAHT i 



I 



AMD 



THE CANADIAN PACIFJO RAILWAY CO., 4 AL.-. 
"^ ' " ' Tians SAisii 

fttLD :— Confirming the judgment of the Court below, that funds temporarily in the hapda 
' of an employee, are really in the pogaesslon [of. his employer,; and the proper 
mode of seizing such money is by ordinary execution, and nDt by garnishment. 



. The appeal waj^from a judg«^ of the Superior Court, St. Francis, and the 
question was whether a clerk is a third person, so that a «ame^rr«« in hia ha^id*-,...^ 
will hold good. The Court below (Brooks,' J.) held, aa to funds tempQrarily ia 
the hands of an employe^, that the employee's possession is really the possession ' 
of the employer, and, therefore, the pr(>per mode of/ selling such mopey ia by ■'' 
ordinary execution, and not by. garoiahment. Hi's iJeoision is unanimously ' 
maintained in Review. . X^ !> .. • 

1fves & Co., attorneys (br plaintiff: - i' ^^ . ,^^ _ 

Xawrence <& Co., attortaeya for deiendant. .' . , ' 




w 



«« 



246 



OOUR DU BANG DR LA HEINE, 1880. 



■ ?\ 



COUB DO BANC PB LA RRINB. g 

Km Appbi.. * , 

Coram Sir A. A. Dorion, jag« ta olief: lion. Ravrat, T|;«»ikb, Cbom, 

. Babt, JJ. 

* MONTRRAL, aiJANVlRR UM. 

HTANWLA8 flLIATRADLT, 
* (^DemandettrmCaur^Iit/irimrt,) 

' ' ■-..^;'-, ■- *": 1 ■ ■■' ■ 'r ii ArmwrTi 

' W^* / *t'>8 BAPTJBTB PRIBOR, #; 

W_S^ »_ iDtfmdeur en Cour IttfirUurt,) 

iNTIMft; 



iots :— Qua la dftfendftur •yant M poanuif i w raooaTreraeat d'une tmeode de $209, loui 
t. l-ku(orit^ de U loo. 01,yle r«ete dea 6l«':tiaui nd6ralei de 1874, 11 lacombtit au 

demandeur de prourer la quality de votaur du ddfendeor par la produoUon dei 
' liitea ilectoralei. 

Que la nreure de ce fait ayaot £t6 faita par tdmoia est llligale et ioiaffliante, 

Le jugemeiA de lu Oonr Sap^rieur^. (Matbina J.), ozpliqu* tout las faiti 
delaCBUM. II se lit oomme suit : ' "'<!.' 

La Coar, a'prdt avoir etit^do loa parties par lonrs avoeats stir le m^rite dos 
troia causes portaDt les aumdros 2531, 2532, 2533, unies par le demandeur 
coDtre le d^fendeur, ct rduaios par ordre,, de oetto oour \ czamip^ U prooiSdure, 
lea pidoes produitoe et la preuvo, et dtfliMr^.' ., » - 

Attendu que lo (Tit domaodeur rdolame par aes aottoos portant lesoumtfros' 
2531, 2532 et 2533, qui f^uroat r^uniol par ju;;eaioat de eJtt? cour, du douie 
d^oembre dernier, la Bomme totalo de siztfdataYiBstros^tant pour trois pdoalit4s 
duos en vortu de U section 92 de I'Acto dea Elections Fdddrales mil bait o<vt 
aoizante ot quatorca ci sea amoudomonts paroo que le d^fen'leur aurait, le vingt- 
aept ootobre mil huit cant quatre-vingt-deuz, pnyiS et dofiud a Jalien Martin, 
joomalier, du C6tbau Landing, la somme de- deaz piastres, ponr I'engager i 
voter k rejection qui cut lieu dans le ooura 9'ootobre mil buit cent quatre-vingi- 
denXj d'un membro de la Chambre des Oommanoi du Canada, pour le district 
dleotoral^e Soul^nges, aaobant le dit d^fendear que le dit Martin dtait un^lec- 
tenr habile A voter i la diUi Election ; -- 

Parce que le m8m3 jour, vingt-aept ootobre mil bni( cent qaatre-vingt, 1% 
d^fendour aurait pajr^ ot donnf & Sirapbin Djsobampa, journalier da village du 
Ooteau Landing, dans le dit district, une sonamode |3:;00 pour I'engager k voteV;, 
A r^leotipn h, laquelle il eat ci-desaas rSr($r4, iuohant le dit d^reodear que la dit 
I)«aohamp3 ^tait an ^Slectaar habile & voter & la dite Election, et parceqae le dit . 
d^ftindeur aurait le dit jour, vibgt«ept ootobre mil hnit cent qoatre-vingt deux, 
pay^ etyremis k Banjamin Obatelois dit Latulippe, journalier du village da Coteau 
Landing, dit district, et tflecteur habile k voter H'jSlaotion plus baat r<fi$r^, one 
somme de deux piastres pour I'engager d voter k la dite^ election, sachant que io 
dit Cbtttelois dit Latulippe dtait nn fleotcur habile k voter, le tout en contraven- 



tion k la section 92 de I'aote des dleotions f^rales 1B74, et oonolut 4 ce qas 



■M-- 
--^ 



:^. 




COUR DU BANG D£ LA RBINK, 1886. 



1 



l« dtfftodtnr mU ooodamn^ 4 lui pojrer la p<aaUt4 d« d«ux mdM piaatrM poar 
ebaqu* pffinM, rormint an monUol toUl dc aiz c«ats piMtrw, cl d« plu A e« 
qu'il soil dtfoUr4 par le jugtmant, que le d^Sfendflur n« ponrta, duraol laa halt 
anojtaqui aaivroot U data du dit jUKament. ni tin tfia 4 auouaa ^laoUon poar 
la Obambra dtaComfflunM da Oaoada, ni aidgar <d ioalla, ni oooapor aacuD* 
eharga 4 la nomlnaUoo da la eoaroona on da goaTarnoment da Canada. . 

Attondu qua l« dit ddfandaur a plaid4 4 ms aotiona qu'ana aation da mdma 
nature qae oeilaa da damaodear, aoouiani le d^fondeur d« a'«tra rendu eoupabla 
. dea mdtuea offbnaan, at rfjlamant da^lui laa tnfliuea p4aalit^ oa amaadea a M 
•igniflde au ddfendeur peraonnallament, le huit ootobro dernier, dana loquella 
Jean llaptiate Elie, oultifateur de la paroiaae de 8t. Zotiqae, dana le diatriet do 
Montreal, eat deniandenr contra In ^it d4fend«i;, le bref %n la dite eaoaa 4tanl 
<mantf le buitootobre dernier, aoua la nam<Sro 2264 dea doaaiera de oette Cour, 
et a M rapport* le Tingt-troU octobre dernier, data Aztfo dana le dit bref poor 
le rappor^ d'ioelui : 

Que le dtffendear a 4t<S oblige do o^mparattre anr la dito aaaignation «t de 
r<pondre 4 la dite pourauite p<$nal<rqai est maintenant pendante at dana laquelle 
le ddfendeur est eipor<$ 4 «ti^a condamnd 4 la mOme pdnalito qur eat rtelamde 
daift lea pnSaentM cauaca; que lo d^fendeur ne pout «tre aaaigqtf e( poonuivi 
deuxfoia et dana deiii inttanoea pendantes en mflmo tempa /poar la m«me 
offenaa et oauao d'aotion, et qu'il n'eat tenu d« rdpondra qa'4 una dea ditea 
assignationa, aoToir, cello aignifido la premiAro aa ddfendeur : qae la pourauite 
inuntte par Jean Baptiate BUo lui a 6i6 aignifi^ le bait ootqbre et a it6 rop- 
portA) le viBgttroia du mflme moU tandia que lea octiona du domandear no lal 
ont 4t« aignifi^Sea qae ledix ootobro et rapportiSea lo vingt-cinq du mfime nioia 
d'ootobre dernier, «t <](u'en oona^ueooo lea aotiona du dcmandour en cetta cauae 
uont poetdrieuroa a oellb de Jean BapUate Elie et n'aarait paa d(k dtro oom- 
mencdea ni'intcntdea contre le ddfendeur. 
Attondu que lo dit ddfendeur a ausai plaidd par uno d^fenae en faits : 
Cooaiddrant qu'il a dtd prouvd par tdmoioa que lo vingt-sopt ootobro mil bait 
cent q,uatrc-vingt-denx, le ddfendeur a payd e( donnd A JWien Martin, joarnalior 
dc la paroisse de St. Poljoarpo,l» aomme de troij piastrea^pour I'engager 4 voter 
4 I'dleotion susdite. 

Que le mfimo jour vingtscpt ofltobro mil hoitoent quatre-vingtHleux, le dd- 
fendeur a paydet donnd 4 Sdraphin Doaflharops, jouroalicr da village du Coteau 
Landing, une aomme do trois piaatres pour I'enga^^or 4 voter A I'dlcction 4* 
laquelle il eat oi-deasus rdfdrA; et qud le dit jour vingt^ept ootobro roil bait 
cent quatre-vingt^ieai, le dit ddfendeur a payd ct remis 4 Benjamin Cb&teloia 
dit Latulippe, journalier da village du CStoaa Land^g, une aommo de deux 
piastres pour I'engj^ger a voter 4 dito dleotion. 

Considdrant que par la seotion 92 du ohapitre 9 dos Statuta da Canada, 1871, " 
37 Victorio, 11 est ddordtd que toate personne qui direotoment oa indireotemen't 
par ello-m^me donnera oa oonviendra do donner ou offrir, ou prometire dcadenien 
ou valeurs 4 og p our qucl qu 'dlecteur anx fins d ' lB d uiro an ^tlnAtn^ T A vo ter o u 4 
B'abstcnir de voter, sera rdputd ooupable de oorrupiioD^et sfera possible d'une 



rillalraali 
I'Uaor. 



f 



/ / 



c^^F 



L JL--^ 



■■pn. , 



■-H^'. 



'■' y 



-\ •' 



■-'€* 



fQiitNmrt 

•I 

Prfamr. 



248 



COUR DU BANG DB LA RRINB, 1889. 



Mni«n«i« dia d«ui mnt pUairM, pajtbl* avM totu 1m tv\% d« raotlon, 4 toate 
penionne qui iaieiiterii raotion. 

Cobtid^rint quale dlt deniandeur n'a paa produit d« onpia ou Mtraitdaa liatei) 
dlootoralea pnur prouver la quality d'^laotaur daa dila Jnlian Martin, B^raphin 
DaaohanipH at Iknjniuin CbAtoloin dit LatuUpp«, mala qn'il iiVat born<^ \ pmu^nr 
leur quttlit^ d v|«oMuni jpar «i|i-indiii«f «t par l«ur d^laratkm ntaDduaoomfflfl 
t^moina; ^"* , ' , - , ,' 

,OnnM!d<lnnt que par la aaotion 40 du ohapitre 9 daa Statute da Canada da 
nRI halt o«nt M)iiant«-«t-qiiatnri«, 87 Victoria, " L'aota daa ^leotiona f<6d<$ralflii 
1874," il «at d^oriStd quo toutai lea p4!rNoiin(M nyant droit do voter auK dtcotiona 
dea rcpr^Rontanti d la Oh«inbr« .d'Aanomblde on Aaaambl^o L^gialatiTe d«a 
difTi^rontoH provinoes qui oompomnt U Puiiitanoe du Canada, et nullea aatrei, 
auront lo droit da voter & I'^leotion dM ddput^a A la Chambre dea Comniunea du 
Canada pour lea diff^renta diatriota 4l«otoraui oompria daiuoes provinoea raapec- 
tivament ; at que toutoa lea liatea d'41eotoara f'altea et |ir^p«nS«a, ot dont d'aprda 
lea Inia en viguour dana lea diff^rentea provilMtia Ton Terait usilKe ai I'dleotion' 
dtait oello d'un reprdaonUnt & la Chambre d'AaaembliSe ou Aaaailibl<$e LiSgialativo 
de U proTinoe dana litquetle aura lieu iMleotion (loraque cea liatea doivont (itre 
faitoa) aeront lea listea ^lootoralea e^ploytfaa auz ^leotiona de ddputda & la 
Cbambre dea Coipmanea qui auront lieu en vertu dea diapositiona du dit aote ; 
Conaiddrant quo lea Hates qui ont dd aervir li I'jleation dont iljvit queatioo, 
ont <St6 faitea on vortu du obapitre 7 dea Statute de U Provinoe d« Qtt<Sbeo de 
1876, 38 Victoria, " L'aoto tfloctoral de QuiJboc ; " 

Conaiddrant que la aection 7 de oe dernier Statut, dtfordte que nul n'aura le 
droit de voter ^ iMIeotion d'un membre iV I'AflaenfbMle LtJgialative do oette pro- 
vince, 4 moina qu'il ne aoit au moment do voter, inaorit oommo propri^taire, 
looataire ou occupant aur la liste des ^leoteura eo force. 

Considorant qu'il rcRulte do oosdispoaitioait que lea ^leoteufa n'ont le droit do 
voter qu'en autant qu'ila aont inaorita aur la liste del ^leoteura, que oette Hate eat 
un document ^orit quo le domaudeur aurait pu faoilemont se proourcQ: ct doot i] 
aurnit pu facilement so procurer dea oopiea oujdes eztraita cortifids. 

CooHuldrant quo cea listea constituent la mcilleure prouvo du droit de vote'd'un 
^leoteur, ot une preuve aeoondaire ou inr($rieure no pout dtre reyue ^ moina qu'au 
prdalable il n'apparaisse que la preuve originairo ou In mcilleure ne peut- fitre i 
foumie. 

Considdrant qu'il oat bien vr.ti quo le ddfondour no a'est paa objeotd & oette 
preuve lora de I'audition dea t^moina qui'ont k\A entendua en oette cause, mais 
que lea dits t^moins n'ont pas dt4 entendua ezpressdment pour prouver leur 
quality d'dleoteur, mais qu'ils ont dtd entendus comme tdmoins aurtout pour 
prouver les faito de corruption, pour leaquols le domao^Bur rdolamo lea p^nalitds 
mentionndes dana son action, et que oo v^vki qu'inoidemment que lea dita tdmoina _' 
ont mentionnS leur qualitd]d'dleotenr ; ' - 

Considorant que le dit demandeur n'a pas prouvd Idgalement que lo dit 9A' 
fbndeur ait payd de I'argent 4 dea dleoteura poUr los falre voter h. I'dleotion et que 
c e a n c iiona aont mni fandflw ; 



:^' 




ill 




com DO BANC DR LA HEINK, 1880. 

.-» — 



■ ";S 



S40 



M^l,«r. ( ooffrion. Itl„fr„t ct I)„ri«„ ,v„oaU du dit .l4fJZr ^ •''^^ 






"'**«-.i 



"'^^ 



i'« oonr d iippul a ooiiflnii^ n juijoiMBi. 

^' couiia)KciuciJiT. 

MONTRKAf,, UMAIIBM. 
_^ ijOBANOBE, J. i 



JugeoMnt oooflratl^ 



••'iv 






■I'l 




^oration dt In ParoiUe <h St, nU*j>hort. 

DAS^K MAHLBAU, ^ 'y^ 

Lcs moy^na d, ddfonHo sont Ioh hu^ ^ "'' ""'"^ '^"''' '» " •8''- 

2. JJJ^).t d'ai^H prdMabfc H I'Lomologntion du procis-vcrbal r ' ^ 

f .^"r!.? r*'*' ""'^'"' ™™'''' l'in«uffi.anc« de desoriptioa dcs tr.v«u, A 



' V ^r 






■■■*, 



•i 






'•'# 



•'v% 






Ic clwn»By ~efr h fefigren cg 



jfoi- 






, I 



• -i. 



260 



COtJB DE CIRCtJiT, 1886. 



tlonde'ia'illH-^^'*'"^®"' °'"^'' ^^P^ ^ '"«"" prdjudioe en raison de rinsuffisanoe de U dci" 
roisse deSt. oription des travauz, bi toutefois' il est vrai qa'il puiase Hte maeai maintonaot a 
TfilespLoio oontribuer au.ooftt do oe oliemin. '' 

D. llarleaii. ^ Loa'ttvis prdalables k I'homologation da procds-verbal paraisaent avoir ^t^ 
-^ ' t doandij. La procdduro d^montre quo le prood»-Terbal a sabi lea phaaea voalaoa 

pour arriver h rhemologation. I^ Fait maiotenant loi poor lea int^resMSa qai nj^ 
'peoTcnt Pattaquer que pour le cas oik il seraitu^^ra virMj'ainsi que le pretend lo 
ddfendeur. Use base ear J4 fait que le procAs-vorbaKr4agit sur le passd en 
autant qu'il conoeme ct rdgle dea travauz ddjA faits, ot amdoo A contribution 
dans le co(it de cos travauz, des propri^tJiires qui n'y avaient pas ^t^ appelds 
. pftr le proc^s-vetbal qui les a ordonn^s. 
;"^ J;_ C'est leseul point veritable dans la canse. Auz termea de I'artide 81Q , 

.,, ' €. M. tout proc<^-verbal peat Otre amende ou abrogtf en tout temps par uo 
' autre procda-verbal fait de la mdoie manidre, sur requOte des int^rew^s 6a sur 

I'ordre du oonseil. „ 

Dans le oas actuel, le procd»-verb4l dont il s'agit a 6t6 fait sur la requSte de 
' riDt<$rie88<S, le nommd Lalonde. II a 6t6, com.me je viens de le dire, pr^d^ de 
toutes les formalit^s voulnes par la loi ot fait de la meme manidre que oelui qu'il 
\ a amende. Jnsqne Id, il p'y a done pas d'irr^gularit^. 

Mais le oonserl a-t-il ezc^dd sea pouvoira en I'adoptanti C'est ^i'art. 799 que 
Ton troave ce que doit indiquer le proods-vevbal, c'est-j^ire la situation, la desi- 
gnation de Touvragie et les travauz ik faire, lesd^Slais dans lesquols ils doivent Strc 
faits, les biend imposables des propri^taires ou oocnpants tenus de Ites faire on de 
contrlbucr k leur confection, 'et la personne sous la snrveillance de laquelle I'ou- 
p[, vrage doft Stre fait et la manidre de le fiiire. 

L'artiole 796 fait aa surintendant une obligation de convoquer les oontri- 

buables int^ress^ dans I'ouvrage projetd, et d'aprda I'article 797, s'il consid^re 

» ' que I'ouvrage en question ne doit pas etre fait, il donne dans son rapport les 

h !' motifs de son opinion ; si aa oontraire, il est d'avis que I'ouvrage doit Hre 

, «x4cut4, il dress»«)n proo^-verbal conform^ment jk l'artiole 799 qui nese rapporte 

qu'4 dea travaoz A fitre faits et non k des travauz d4}k faits. 

Tons les articles suivants sont dansule mfime sens, et nuUe part trouve-t-on 
une allusion diiz travauz d4j^ faits.. 

- «L'aote de r^jwrtition qui est ptipard pour mettre en ez4eution le procds- 
wbal ne so rapporte, suivant I'art.. 816, qu'auz travauz & faire ot auz biens im- 
posables par les propri^taires on oocupants, desquels cea travauz doivent @tre 
^z^ttt^ ; la part des travaaz qui doit dtre faite par phacan ; le montant de lii 
V contribution qui doit Stre fourni en dm^eta, en main-d'oeavre, ou en iuat(Sriaaz; 

le lieu, Ig temp8>et les offioi^jt auzquels la contribution doit 6tre pay^e. 
Ainsi, partout, il ne a'agit que de Jravauz Jk faire et non de travauz d^ja 

, . . Dans I« oas actuel, voioi ce que d^lare le proc^verbal qui fait la b&se de li 

. pr^^te action. Aprds avoir £nonc^ que la.|j^ute oontinuera 4 Stre faite, entre- 

' . • tenue\aijp8i qu'ordonnd et d^ola«|par le prerijfer proofs-verbal, on ajoute que le> 



proprliaUes on oocupanta deTerre & Ja C|le iSte. CHHeiine, depuU le No. 131 
da Cadastre jusqu'au No. 119 incluai^eiii, ainai que les propri^tairea de terre 



/^ 



~3S. '•■■ 






•m 



-:2s. 



COUR DB CIRCUIT, 1886. 



251 



■on ocoup^to A partir du No. 132 juequ'.u No. 139, soront nssujottU au. tra- La Corpora. 
Tauxdex<5cut.on et d'entretlen de la dite ponttfo, avco et ensemble lee autre- "*"? •'•^^ 
IZ Z '; ^'"^ ^''^'*^- ^''''*'""«' 'J^J^-ntiono.o dans 1 pit 'Kptf 

r^S:"^''"^^'^ ^ '-"'^""^^' '' '"^- 7 - ^^ - - — ■ 

,, Or, 4 r^poque oA le dernier prdc^s-verbal a 6t4 homolog^,^ Mivaux €taient ' 
Jj^eie^Bi^s, il n'en restait A feire qu'une ialble Jn^rtie etJes frais ^ta^t 

- La ^partition qui a «fe faite otjur laquclle repose la V&cnte' action 

. <x.«v« ,d^.|ravaux ddj4 faits et auxquile d^Sf^^ 

Fe-erj^«««Wbal. Cette repartition, de mfime que le proc^s-veS^aU^ ' 

eUese rappor e n'est pas oonforoie aux articles du Code ci!dess„. cit^s, eJest 

S« : .• , "'^"P'""* « procd«:vertal, le conseil a excdd^ ses pouvoirs et fait «n 

J re m^^r J^ ' ""• ''^"^^•»"*'<'»'"'1'»^ «» Kl^H^ de cet acte peuvcnt ' 

etre mfses en question en tous temps. 

Quant A 1. question de savoir si le chemin est utile ou non au d^fendeur, 11 1 

0^ p,ustempsdelad^ider. H y avait 14 dessus autorit^ de eh,^ jugV 
c e^ une question de fa.t qui a 6t4 d^termin^e par le proofs-verbal et le^dL- ^ 
deu n ayant pas formula sou opposition 4 temps est maintenant non-reoevable 4 
Be plaindre, ei le procds-vorbal etait valide. 

La dernidre raison : On se plaint que la repartition est nulle, attendu 
qu'e lie aurait «d faite avant I'expiration du proc^s-verbal. II suffit de' rCdr" 
4 cette obj^Btion quo la repartition p'est pas une procedure essentielle : £ tra- 
Ta^peuventegalementStre r^partis soit p.r «n procds-verbal, eoit par r^solu- 

Z«r, r "* *! '"•'"'' P""*" ^"* *!"•' '«» repartition J. e.e faite pre- 
maturemenl, que le procds-verbal devrait etre declare nul 

la nl'^f "*'" f ', ""'''''" '* "*"' P?''*' *»'^'" y • «'^ ««*» -J* Pouvoi'r de 
apart du conseil; le proeds-verbal est ultra viri,, et son illegalite pent 8tre 
•nvoquee en tout temps, UQuobstant le defaut d'opposition 4 son homologation 
X. action est en consequence renvoyee aveo depcns. 

M. Bastien pour la d^anderesse dit : 

" Lcs Corporationsopt,\dan8 un cadre plus restroint, les mimes pouvoirs que l«s 

legislatures et toutea deuxWvent agir dans les bornes de la constiUxtion, eJ outre 

les attnbutionsqm leur sontWeespar le Code les cohseib, municip.uk peuvent 

more exercer des attnbutionWn incompatibles avec le Code. lis partioi^nt aux 

rois pouvoirs, legislatif, judioWre et exeoutif. L« Corporations legifirent sur 

llTZ ■"* '" ''"' "T* '' '*' P'""P^- ^« Soaetivit^irnl 
retmac ivite leur SQ.t communs.V Toutes deux doivent agir dans les limite. de 

kurs attributions te^pefltives. dU r«p4ce, en an,endant «n preoii^verbW la 

c^rauon ^.«ut danar « limitSde -e. attributions, et le prLp. de Xl ' 

a^y.»e..appl,q»e 4 tousles oorpsl^iftrantet imposant 1. loi, puS,u'il n est 
<pi une maxime d'JQ terprfttation d>^ ^-^ r,. -» ..:._„,«' *^ ^ 




/ 



£" 



■-oogpotatioa4^ift r e ea 'ameftdant- 



ir^* Th ^' f "" *»"' '"^ l^slaWfe, et si elle declare qu'ell. donne 
effet letroaotif 4 une lo', sa volonte doit 6tre resp^tee. 



un 



/-' ■ 






^■cv'' 



< > 



252 



COUil BK CIRCUIT, 1886. 



/ 






La Gorporn- Et d'aillcurs, la r<Stroactivitd s'uppliqucrnit-cllo dana lo ons actael, quelquo 
ro"B8ede^*''''J"**'° 'l"'*-'^'*' P">980 Ctrc, cllo n'cst pas uiio cause do nullitd du procds-vorbal, 
T£IeBphore et h rupiirtitron qui fait la bflso dc cctte action dtant biisco »ur Ic proci^»-vci;bal 
D. Mailean. Lcgris til (lu'iimcndiS par lo proc6s-vcrb:il Gladu, (lc3 ditu p.rdc^a-vcrbaux honno- 
logues ct (!» rorco ot yi^ucur toul^deux) et ayant 6t6 faito aprtis I'entrelS 'en 
vigueur d<;s (lits procos-verUiiux, est valido ct doit Ctro dtSclardo tellu par cctte 
Cour. . ^ 

. C. M: art. 808, 809, 810 ct de 814 A 820. 
.. ' Lorati- r. Code Civil. Sin- art. pp. i4T, 135, 158, Vol. 1. 
,/ Aubry et Jlau, Vol, 1 K^l.-do 1809, pp,.58 ct G6 ct note 2 p. 58 par. 30. 

Sirey, C. N. ait. 2, Noa! 1, 2, (), et 47. 
"^ ' DoRioM pom- lo dtSfeudeur : Lcs corporations niiinicipaics n'ont pas les pou- < 

*' ' voirs dtendus dcs Idjjjisliiturbs ; clles n'ont que des pouvoirs deldEjudi} et ellus 

no peuv(!Mt ai^ir quo dans Ics li mites dc IcuM attributions. II suffit do lire les 
articles 700 :l 820 du,Co(lo Municipal p'oxjt constater que Ics corporations no 
■ %> peuvcnt obligor lours nicmbrcs qu'ii contribuer aux travaux ii vc&ir ct non aiuc 

travaux liojii faitsjou en d'autres ternics qu'un procos-^orbul ct un acta do repar- 
itition no puuvent avoii d'cffet relroactif. 
^ Dans tons ccs articles ct specialement dans Ics articles 79G, 797>798, 799, 

801, 8i)2, 803, 805, SOU, 814, 815, il"n'cst question .ijue d'ouvrages u fairo, 
d'ouvrag.'s projutes, et jamais de travaux dcji fails e1i charges a d'autres contri- 
buables, ' ' v 

L'on aVitii I'arjiele 810; nmis cct article no peiit avoir d'applicatioh que pour 
I'avenir. L'ainenilPuicnt n'osl,'q|'m|k autre cliose qu'un ftouvcau procOsvcrbal 
sujct aux niC'uies re^!es quo cclupqfl: il amende j or si I'on a lo droit de mo taxer 
pour de- ouv'r.iiics terniincs Ton a, done lo droit do se soustrairo a I'observition 
des foruiiilites requises pour la-iConfoction du prociis-verbul ; notamnient que 
dcvient luon droit en vertu de I'article 796 d'etre entendu sur Ics ouvrages projei^s 
" lorsque cos ouvrages sont d^j.i tcrniitids quand je suis notifid que je dois y,con- 
tribuor? Donuer i i'articlo 810 fintcrprdtation que lui donnc la demandec 
resse, c'cst ddclarer, contrairement aux termes de cefnrticle, que Ton n'est pas 
' ttnu de suivrc Ics nieincs viigles pour amender que pour fairo un proems voTbal, 
En adof tant la tlieorie de la demandcrosBe, il faudrait dire qu'uno corpwa- 
! tion a !o droit, apros avoir ordound par un proctis-vcrbal la confection do 
certains tnivaux, apvcs avoir mis ces travaux iL h.^harge dc certains pontribua- 
bles exelupts en vertu du premier precis-verbal suivant le principe, inclusis unis 
Jit ealasio altcrlus, ct qui n'ont pqs iDiSmc 6l6 onsuIttSs sur I'opportunitiS ou la 
ndcessitfS des travaux en question. 

Pr^icsi e< B«s?»Vn, avocats de la dcmatideresso. *^ r*H. 

(?cq/mn, Z)oriOM c? /?*H/re«, avocats du ddfe^Jeur. 

;■ a.^, — — — . — ; . ■ '••:;.' ' ,\ . 






%,;: 



M 



V^"^' 






COURT OF QUJiEN'S BENCH, 1886 



253 



#■ 



■v— ■ 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 

. APPKAL 8ID1. 

I No. 80. . I*"-,, . 

MONTREAL, SEPTEMBER 26th, iW,, 

Present, Dorion, C. J., R^sat, Tessier, Cross, and Babt, J.J. 

JAMES R cox 
1 ^ {Plaintiff in tht Court betow), 

AND ,; SlPPULAUT 



^» 



% 



WILLIAM R. TURNER bt al. \ 

- ^ (.ife/endants in the Court bel'ov). 

Respondents. 



C sold to T, on the 2Gth Sept^ber, a quantity of tea, to arrive ex-steamer, for prompt 

„ cash. On the lim Oct. following, C sent a deliveiy order to T who refused to 

accept the tea, unless the terms were changed, and delay given for^iayment of the 

• ^ ^ce, on the ground that the tea had not arrived in a reasonabW time. C refuMd to 

• agree to <^ change of the terms of sale, and stopped the deUvery o^der ; after servine 

^ a protest on P, he sold the tea at a loss, and entered an action against him to recover 

the amount of tha loss, which action was dismissed in ihe Superior Court. 
Held, in IfTpeal, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, that the breach of contract 
occurr.|.||y the respondent P refusing to accept the tea unless the- conditions were 
ctianged so as to convert a sale for cash into a sale on credit. 
That on such refusal C was justified in stopping the delivery of the tea, snUl sltisfitd that 
he woulc^aid according to the term, of^is contract, ^nd shoul^Bot be obliged 
to give cralit for the payment. '^ ' ', . - . 

That iu a sale " to arrive " a delay o^ fifteen days is not excessive, and wili not justifv a' 

refusal to accepMhe goods which are purchased. / 

That in a sale for " prompt cash " payment must be made on delivery of the goods. 
-' .The judgment of^be Court sufficiently sets forth the facts ef the case 
. Cross, J.-On tHe 2Gth of September, ,18g4,' the appellant, tli" 
, ^broker, Osj^pod, sold the r|ttb.idenia si^y-cight half-chests Japan tei,™. u^r 
■ sample, Gifuffcc, 118,120rm 20«ents per lb., duty paid, to arrive ex-Glenorchy, 
. that 18 by a vesi^ of that name, to arrive, or which had arrived, at thejwrt o^ 
,.^ New ^ork ; t^s pforiipt ca^ less 3 per cet^t. The tea had all'arrived at 
Montreal by the 14tl^October, and^bad been placed in the warehouse pf ^Nivid 
EJniry, warehouseman. Previously, that is ^n Saturday, the 11th of Oc^ber, 
the appellant caused an invoicg.|jnd delivery order (the latter addressed Kinil 
ry) to be made tfut -find delifered to the respondents. This delivery order 
• WIS by respondents' carter presented toKiniry, probably on the 14th or early 
on the 15th of October (the exact tinie is not fixe'd by the proof), and Kiniry 
in answer, offered to deliver the tea, but itwas not then accepted, and the 
delivery order wfis l^ft with Kiniry. " In the mean tjme, by a letter dated the 
Utb, but only delivered on thp 15lh October, the respondentsfrefuse^ to accept the 



il" 



% 

% 
'}ii 



^ 



Ittions t)f sale" 



credit in place offer ca..h. ■ This lett;!r wus to the effect that they, theTespS 
• *' -s. . . OcaoBM, Vol. 30— No. 10. 






J 






•■*♦ 



■h*: 



2r>4 



COURT OP QDBEN'S B>NCir, im'. 



J.P. Ooi 
and 



•-^ 



dents, would only accept the tea on condition they should have the option ftf four 
W. R. Turner months or 3 per cent., iueaning;»3 percent, discount at thirty days.; The pretexf , 
^* '•• lor making this demand was that the tea had noin arrived in reasonable tiinej aii 
» ^ excuse which doosnot seem to be borne outbjt the proo|; nor was it* persisted itii > 

' The appellant refused to aopede to this proposed change of terms, nuJre espeofal. 
ly to put himself rft the position of a vendor on tfrcdit. The respondents, never- 
' tiieless, without intimating that they aLndoncd the position taken ^y them iif 

their letter above cited, causcct a demand to be made by »hcir c:ir(ei§ . 
: on Kiniry ifbr the return of the delivery ordcB which Kiniry, then 

by th^ instriiotions of the appellant, as well verbnlly as 'in writing, refused 
• to, give him'. The appellulit's written instructions to Kiniry, 'contained 
T^ — in »• letter 'dated October 15th, guested J^iniry to retain' the delivery order ': 
, in bis possession, and stated also that as the respondents hud written the 
nppellunt, declining accepn»nce of the tea unless the appellant would change 
, ♦ - ^^^ '«™8 h(;reed upon^ Klpry was requested not to deliver th« tea 
VP^^^'^B •nsfiuetions' frcuii him, the appellant ; whtir^pon the respondent 
'through their attorneys, Doutre & Co., by letter of date October IStU; 
•. addressed to the uppellabT, stated that the tea was not delivered by Kiqi- 

^ ,^ 'y ^^^° oppellaut's order was presented ; that on that rjfusal they ha«i 
been rcqiiested by their clients to ask the delivery of the tea or the remittance. 
, of the order, *hiijh had been handed to Mr. Kiniry; that as Kiniry afhiged ' 

hcjjould not deliver the tea nor the order, because of instructions received from 

^ the appellant, their clients, the respondents considered that the contract with 

the appellant was cancelled, and they intended holding the appellant responsible 

^ for all diimiiiies. ' Up to this time the only question in, dispute was as to the 

delivery pf the tea, which appellant had the right of withholding against the 

demand that the transaction should be oneon credit. If the respondents had 

ogiupled their demand for the orders with a declaration of willingness on their 

part to comply with 'the terms of the sale, they might have thereby restored 

their position and put the appellant on his dilig^ee. The appellant, consistent 

, with his pretensions, took tilis further precaution as the respondents were entit- ' 

led to inspect- the tea ; appellant, on the 18th' October, sent them aa order 
A r^ addressed to Kiniry t6 allow them to sample the tea. The ne]^t. proceeding 
wa<3 a formal notarial protest by the appellant, made and signified to the respon- 
dents on the 21st October, whereby he narrated the facts above recited and ' 
tendered the. respondents a delivery erder for the tea, dcmunding payment ' ' 
thereof, accordin^tothe terms of the agreement for the sale thereof, and there 
being neh compliance with this demand, but .a refusal on the grounds already 
taken by them, the appellant caused the tea to be sold for the best price that 
oould be obtained for it through .% broker, who offered it to the re^ndents 
^-tbennelves. There wAs a loss on tbe tea, which realized less than the price the 
respondents bad i^eed^ to pay for it, for which loss, with certain costs all<^ed to 
have l>een necessarily incurred by appellant, the present actioifhas b'e^ brought. " 

^he^aniedjadg^^.of-tbe^aperior-Gourtwarof opioion-tfiai ^^ 

. been in default to deliver the tea according to the terms of the sale, and that !> 



"^^J 



. '^ 



s,v 






)•% 



<& 









COURT .OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886; 



255 



b 



' SZtel^'lth T":^ ^7"""* ^*""''' **' «"»">»*"e«UBly with the delivery J. P. 0., 
otthe.toa which the rf«pon dents were not bound to,u.,.kc; ho oonsenuentlv w „*%' " 

1": wT''*"'^ ^'''"- -^^« ^""^' "- ^•'•"^ ^^-^ the s udg i""- a ir-" 

It ret!;. , ' ^'^ '^*<':«-*'°-h of the contract occurred, by tho respon- ' 

rsTuBtiVf ;" 'T * ""'<' **« °''^^' ■' '^'^ on Buch refusal the appoUant 
was jusffied .a stoppiui, the delivery of the tea until satisfied that he would be 

to erms of credit ; that i,f the absence of stipulation to the contrary the eon. 
.d.t^preCed.nt.ntheve,dor'spartisre.dinesstopay theprice^tha^^^^^^^^^^ ' 

tJatt ? 7 °^7*^<^« '— «d.i" the protest served upon the .efportden s Tnd "^~ - " 
.that the pretended damages suflFored by the ^espn^ ' :" 

dj^ve.7 are ^otmputable to the appellant. There i. no doubt the respodente 
u^.nconven.e„ce,and.perhap,evenIoss in their business l,y3"^ ' 

he tea sooner, but on sale to arrive from a vessel expected in New York fhe d^ ' ^ 

complam of the delay, nor iS thero.much in the pretention that prompt cash ' 
^ean, payment several days after delivery. On a cash sale vendorrrn h "ds 

m'^^^^^^ '« ready simultaneLt:' 

lh.8 couryapf opinion that the judgment of the Superior court is to be re- * 

" how«r T" k' """'" '^^"''^''- ^ •'^™'^"* of quite Vnovel cWacter is 
however, se upon this case, viz., the allowance of a counsel fee for «ivin. advice 
to the appellant, m are not disposed to allow this charge.^ The courts arl 
continuallypresUed^ allow extraneous charges, and if su:h demands we^e "t '' ^ ' 

^Ireadv have the reputau^p of being. Every subject is supposed ta.be bound to 
tnow tlie few forjiimself, and if he thinks it prudent to be'^vise^^n what s 
legally an ob igation of his own, he Tidulges in a lu.ury he is 111 „„d I 
presume, fa r v bonnA t^ «,.» ♦«!.:„ -ul^ • ^ ^""' """*' ^ 



-Wf»*. 



presume, fairly bound- to put to his own oh 



X 



' 



idgment reversed with costs 



y.Taylor, X>lcksQn<S; AicAan, attorneys for appellant 
Joseph <fe Daudurand, attorneys for respoifJents, ' 



^ 



■a- 




5 »■ 



^ 




■^ 



COUR DU BANC 

MONTRE 
Chief Justice DoRio^/ and 




COUR DU BANG DE LA REINE, 1886. 




pfiF^&jKKD qj^. 



iMTllI^. 
TltTHBS.' ' ' 
Juirt^^striet of Jolietto, - 
Thd action was by the 




Ujl^as frdi*» jjjUfl 
ipg'ifi action foiftithe^ 

^ pfU'ish of Ste.Julienne,:^'canoDi,daI parish, not civilly' oonstitutoJ; 
Imtifered from ^ oanooieai pirisli civilly oonstitutod, af^iost an inhabitant 
' disnaembercdi parish for" titM^ The Court hW to deci«ie solely the qujos- 
lt^,whethe?t) 'person, being ajtBo^n CathoKb and a proprietor in the parish^ 
cotald be compelled >to pay .tithe t^J^Hp "JlP curi, 
. RaV^iat, J., giving the |idgni*8|&^e Court, held that the pariah was in its 
ofigin on'cedesiaHical ,in*Ut;4iions;flra»t it existed before/ and independently 
■'^ of any civil' recognition ; that vt;ithc' fl^(p]icd to the parish/by the common law 
'ciyilani canonical ; that under 'the Iql^^^o*' France, prior to the cession, the 
' bishop hftd the right tf^ ci-eatiji i^niti.i lot. divide parishes/in the interest of llio 
cbtilrfih, having due regard to v^tfid -4^^ ; that the laws flpcoiaUy enacted for tbo 
P^viiice (jf Qutbcc ha4 not affected thiis condition of things ; and, thirdly, that 
th4 Ia\vS'0intcted, since the Englisb oecupatiou of Canada/ and under the treaty 
of ^ari% had oot affected«th» ecclesiastical law in thijlWrespeot. The principal 
argii^JcntTof the' ap^ellant^ that the l^ttivs" affecting the olvil erection ofparishen, 
ha^, in effect, destroyed the power tpiqreate a canonical pariah 'for any other 
* purpose %3.n as a means to have tb^^same created civilly, was not supported by 
the text of the laws referrey-to„ and piling at variance with the common law of 
France and'<)f the Province of Q^^ehejCjiwas untenable; • 

DoHiON, C. J., cdncuVred, andoreierred to a case of Brassard & Bcsaencr, 
decided in 1848, which laid down, on. a law issue, that the cur^ of the, parish 
dismembered, by canonical decree could 'recover for tithe in the new parish.-, 

T£ssi£lt, J.',' concurred,' but had 
. conc)(Hsi»n''wljJch had T>een express 
BA'aY,"'J^, concurred in the ju 
"Cross, J, did hot dissent, b 
direction. He acquiesci 
port of Ihose qualified me 
an opinion jugtin t)ie subje 



•H 

/. 



fit' 




Chafhind, attorney 
Quimit^ Cornellier & Lajoii 



L' 



;^ 




p impression inclined ija the o^ositc,' 
iSent, howevet seeing that it had the sup- 
Court wliowere the bestoualified toJBurm 

^= ^ j Judgment ewifi r moJt 



\ 



perien'ccd soiile difficulty in arriving at ^^^M-^^K^Att 



Juoft :- 



Per 

rart.4^ 

trouv^s 

eplusiei 

h U mi 

suivant 

Led 

■ .oipal; ( 

qu'en v 

lier; d( 

voie d'e 

" S'ilei 

cette de 

Buffisam 

]e oas d( 

velle, et 

Montign 

est dans 

/^>i-f 

^fOU8'\poil 

lEonn)BUi 

L'aoti( 
poursuifj 
tient pou 

doti 

mere 

(3 ^rn'i 

ibring saol 

Queen as 

ordinary 






" " who sue 
the ease i 



m 



! \ 



'■■I »-. 



COtm DE CIRCUIT, 1886. i 



257 



OpUR DB CIRCUIT, 1886. 

• MONTREAL, 4 MAI 1886. 

Coram Loranoeb, J. - 

F. VINBT, 

■■■',■* 
^JOS. TODPIN, 



RiqufaiANT ; 



DtPIMOICB. 



suivant et moitid i laWporation, I'action (qui alors Mt qui ^arnVdoit fltre Vriw 
tant au nom du plaignant qu'au nom de la corporation ( Jt. 1048. CM ) 

" I'arf ^40 rT ''~^''^° Pf '^ '^' '' «'"''^'*" **'"" "'"'^ «" «>" "«" '^"I «o«« 
^ouvda errante. Las fa.ts sont admh ; U ddfonse «.uldve la question ddj4 ju«' 

aJvar" T , -^j"'!- ^«*8)'/-»'«" de'-'t ^«^e prise .ant au nom du ^. 
Buivant qu oncolui de la corporation. » I^ur 

^ , Lodemandeur rdpond qu'aux termos de I'art. 365 il est un offioicr muni 

- -cpal ; que d'aprds Particle 440 I'a.„oode rdoIan.6e est payable 4 r^Le et 

qu^n vertude I'articio 1046 I'action pouvait .tre intentdVen son ioCrL 

Joie4'e«eptionilaformeetnonparddfen8eendr6it ' 

o.r!ir •?' r ';"**•«" "° ««"»Pte P»8 «« demandeur en son nom particulicr 
cette dorn.6re object.on sorait mal fonddo, car le demaiideur no ddlntre pas' 
Buffisamment «,n droit d'aclion pour toute la somme r^lamde, et aiors ctt £ ' 

verett t 7 " '""'• ?"""* ' '" P'^"''" q«estio.,;,e n-estpCi : 
M!„;rl Tul ""'T''' '■ --«'». «-f le jugementde mohsieur De- 
ft dln7ll" 1 '' ^'"'''"' ^ ^''"* ^^°*'"' P- 325. que la jurisprudence 
^t dans le sens de la proposition soutenue par le ddfendeur . 

, ^a, fait un «.am|n particulier de chacun de ces arrfite, et je les trouve en 

^4^us-^intseonfom'esd la doctrine desanciensaut««rB.si\ie; posde paTso; 

Honnjur M. le ^fige Polette, re Lurin .,. RtAouin. fer Vol. Xue L^^^ 

L*actL |H)pukire est de deux esp6ccs ; si I'amcnde retourne ea ^^tier au ' 
pour8umJ^l'act.onfeprend.enson nomsoul; si au*co„traire elle lui appar 
tient pour, ^t,e secernent et part.e ad Roi ou 4 la Corporation, ^'est Taction 



nui ttAv^&i,; \.« ««Jl ----.- ... -«..j,v.a«uu, V eui i aCMOn 



~-—rr.y Tr^j™x''*"*f t">»in pro Be tpt 

£f^:!.;?:!!!!''S^'J'^'^r'?"^> -^- 0^ -fi^rmation, .„y „„«•„«; 



!•* 4.U • u . .V «'•"" ,.'"'!^"4v "J' ""s-'ou or miormation, jany one"mav 

14 ibrxogsuch^Uoo Afbram^and^his de^^ as w.ll fbi oL lIZI 
I Queen as for hfinSoTx \ '^/^ -^^ ■■ ^"ay me 

iy»etewrit8,>Arok>ld'8N.w Practice of Attornies.ch.a p. 187) are iu the 



ordinary for m, eyept thata % tU wor ds/ l.t fh K miit o g. t h o p la in UJ-, you\dJ 



i f! 



•i 



'\l 



i ) 



'■py- 






ifprf* 



V:, 



^■»' 



'■)• 



m. 



COtTR DE CIRCUIT, 1886-, 



■£ 



'/ 



3r.Vlwt . Cctte doctrine a dttS" oclopt<5e par tou« l«i juiie« de/n Cou^^Su|)4r^euro tant 
^0* Ruplii. doDB le District do Montrt^ que dans le District do Qulbco. 0» pfeut h, oot <Sgttrd. 
r^f^rer aux d«5eiBioD» auiyantoo* A ^ 

- . " ^ JRevue Ldpale, Lamy et Rubouin, p. 687, jusie Po>ftte. 

6 " " Robert et Doutre, p. 401, jujje Bclangcr. „ 

6 •' " P. 641, Houlovfit Martin, juge Sicottc. ^ - ■ . . 

.7 V-" " P. 185 Luhftio et McMartin, ju«»JohnBon, \ 
6, Q. L. R. p. 346, Grnhnra & Moussctto, jugo Casault, No: 173^Ti udeau ct 
.Beaudry (non rapportC') Jeft^p»r le juge DoLerty Ic 23 d4cembr*/l885, (Cour 
d^ Circuit, MoBtr^al.) „ / • • i 

On objects qV I'article 1046 aatoriso I'action au nom du/poursuivant aetil. 
Tl^articlo mj lit CQmmo'uit : . " Toute poumuite pour anica^peuVetr© intenfi-o 
par touto pcrsonne majeure en son nom particulicr ou par. le chef du conaejl nu 
nom de la corporation. 

Les termes de cet article different peu do ceux employes ^ar la section 64 dcs^ 
8. H. B. C, qui recannai^sait, \ toute pcrsonno majeure le droit d* porter IVc- 
tion. La seuHe difKrence est dans I'addition dcs mots en Fon- MO»i^#<n^ft£i^ 
Je suis avec les Honorabtes jugesCa**uLt et BSlangcr^d'ayls, quejwtf rudditToT 
Hde ces mots le l^gislateur.n'a pa°s eu I'intcution ct de luit n^aimrchangiS la nature 
•le Taction, qui taw. qui est d'attribuer "par un m§me ji>g^cnt, aux deux bone* 
fioiaJres la part qui leur r^jfientj et duns ce. .cas, W noils' des deux "doivciit 
;' apparaitre suf I'actiOn j„comme raisin additibnfielle/iijputerais que I'article 1048 
' ind'ique le sens qu^il faut attrlbiuer i ces motsLen Xtur nom parlimh'er en 
' declarant oue les ^m^ndes appartienii'ent 'd mojni \ui1 n'cihoU rigli mUrement, 
moiti^ au poursWfva^t ct I'uutre nioiti^ a la cor^atiV • Jl y » des amendcsi 
qui appartienneiot en entier au poursuivunt et confequtmeot <5chnppeftt aux di.«. 
positions gentles d6j>rticle 1048, Jes^ticles, 401 et 429,6? lournissant dcs 
exemplcs ; il/en est de tji6me de CQrtuiiirVrBendejL.ou, p<Sn8lii<58 assimil^JsB aux 
..taxes municJpales pas le Coj^o ou'par les r^glemUts municipauxr Ces amendes 
P' appartiennebt au poursuiVnt en entier et swit rkouvrdcs en son nom sfiui- 
■ Mais on nJ doit pas conclure de li, que ^'exception doit s'<Stendre pux autres cas. 
pr^vu8,|)aJl'artide 1048 et-juje le l^gislatucr a voultf ddrojser au droit comroun. ' 
/ tfne dflthlere objection ^ dcma^ndeur est qu'il est up officier municipal etli 
leiroit dl poursuite en son pom pour les fins de sa dcroande. Sa pri^tentioft 
B'est appuy^e '|aT aucun article du Code. Le *cul qu'il ^puisse inv«)qu«r est 
I'article 1046 ; et cet article ne reconna^t qii'uu chef du conteil le droit de per- 
ter Taction, au nom de la corporation. \ . « 

- Sur le tottt je suis'd'atis que la difensfe est bien fondle et I'.action Uoit eire 
renvoyds sauf'recourss'iljsa lieu. \ * V ' ,. - ^>j» /*.' 

". Loranger et Beau^in, pour le dem^ndejll^;, - ■ f^.:..'j-i:j- 

Privost €t BatHen, fow k (iitavik^, ''* • * "«" 



.0* 






'*- 







,i 
V ^* 






y 



♦ 






. ^UBERtpRCtftiin', 1886. > 



2M 



"**•-] SUPiJRlOR COURT, 1886. 

' Vi ' " '-MONTRBAfc, 'MAY 29Tif, 1886. " \ ' 

. " " JProBcnt: Mr Jumido TASOHipi^U., " - 

-, •:./ ^ •' WILLIAM F. BKARDSEfLL, \ Pi»ii.T.rr; 

to _•.* THMUTV OF MONTREAL, #Dicri«DANT. 

tl»0 :-Th.t,th« dtjr bM power to ft chide from iu limiu all Wnuf.ctoriej, 4c., which 
are injariout to to the public hi>altb. . 

'" "^ '^t'^L'/^'^y ''"'"I .'"t.* *!**" ?^"K«'l, In Tlftu« of the power' thai reiled la the ' 
• ^ " > H.L "/""I'v '','' '•"•''»••» ^•» »"other pUce, has no claim agalnit tba thy for 
... - damages for the low lustainfd by him through luch removal. • 

The plaintiff, whons-tho propriety of a glue factory within the city limits, 
claimed damages .for thpfilo.sinRof hia factory, and th'e stoppageof his operations. 
4bout a year ago he reooived notioe^that he must remove his -business outside" 
tht) city. He alleged that this had interfered with his operatiohi, and caused ^. 
him heavy losses. The\defen<se wus that the manufactory was injurious to the 
public health, and that the city was authorized by law to exclude such manu- 
fwturerffrom the city. The Court sustained the defence, and the action was 
dismissed. ' _ , 

7", <fr-^ (7, i)cX,orijn »'«»•, attorneys for plaintiff. . 

ifottw .ffoy, attorney, for defendant. 



. V\ 



y^ 



- . SU|>ERIORCOURT,188^ 

' MOfTREAL, MARCH SOthj 188fl. ' 

Cojram-^Mr. Justice Loranqer. 
t;he exchange baM of qa^jtada, 

AMD J !, 

BI. H. OA0LT,-_ 



^: 



'LAiHTirr ; 



DtriNDANT.- 



A gave a bond thf t 0, who was a cashier of a Bank, would faithfully perform his dutie^. 
was afterwards made president pf the Bank, and when in such position com- 
mitted a defalcation. 9 ' 

Hbld :— That the boQd -was Toid. 

The defendant became surety for Thomas Craig when the latter was appointed 

.oafihier of the Bxchansjo Bank. The bond was for the faithful performance of 

, bis duties " as an employee of theBank." The partibular nature of the employ* 

niBjft i^uf'iiot mentioned. The pliintiffs now olaim^yLMMdiidbond, alleging that 

|, .Craig was a defaulter, nnd that the Bank h:id obtainefl&filpbt against him for 

|"a obnsiiernble sum. The defence was that the suretysh^was given when Craig 

was cashier ; but sijbsequently he had been made managing director, and finally 

president ; that the risk had been ausmented by this change of hift duties, and the 

suretyship was null. - Tiie act of detolcation was proved, but it was subsequent 

to Craig's change of position. It appeared that as president ho had absolute 

control of the cash and the books. It was quite possible that if he had held this 

positfon at the time the bond was given the d«fendant would not have consented 

to become surety. If he had oontinuedto hold the office of cashier only, Abesame, 

opportunities' would not have been afiralrded him., and no defalcation mightjiave 

-oocurre^. Under the circumstances, the Court was of opinion that the risk was 

aujgmerited and the bond Was invalidated. The action wouldt therefore, be dia- 



\ 



inisBBd with uuMi. 




GreensKield$, McCorkill and Ouefin, attorneys for plabtiC 
./l^toafer (& CroM, atto^eys for defendant. i 







♦ 




"^9^ 



COUR SUPfcRIEURE 



5, lim. 



COl>R SUr^KIEUKK. 
' ."'•KAOnAKNOIB, a« MAI itm, 

Coram UCLANdKB, J. 
V ij V)t(VQgdLAS DUYON, 



• 



'*t. 



*«. 



V. 



INpiUB. 



'^ Dkni 
II fnut que U plalgnant •It^fue et 






re 



»t.-T 






% 






I"' 



* r - JOIINHTBWAttT, 

Joet t'^K M|lH0l^^^i^>'Qii JUIhf'''''^'''''''''''* 'i '**'" 
' Itrvuve uif» uaurimtlun cl un« itiMoliun uctueltet ot tuflUmntei de U cWgw^^uu 

le (li'fend^ijir iKurpc. (Art. low, (5, p. C.) 

UUAU : — Par Ha'rc«)uCl« h iluuxan^we sllp^ae: <(u'!rlllt proprrotairo 
f^o bietis foiidfl, en In paroissu At. iKidoro, ooiM di Laprtirie^ lo qoalifiaiii i^ 
, voter poumcM churgeii de oonieillcrs oiunicipaax, et qu'i! est mliro do la corpo- 
ration do at. Isidore dopqiti trois anx. Quo lu 27 fiSvrier 1883/ Joseph Landry, 
douicr, en |m qualitd de aurintondant spoeiul, a fuit drc«ier^Q proo6b-verbai, 
ordonnantl I'ouverturo d'uuo' route dcpuis to odto Ste. Margnorim dans b 
paroisse Ste Philoiu<^no/dans lo oon\t^ de Cliatoaoguay, juaqu'^ la cOte QSi 
lligiB, dans la paroiwe St. Isidore, dans lo coint^ do L«prairio, et obligeant les 
habitants do cH^tqae paroisse & ottvrir ot faire ouv f if hr TpAffic do telle route se 
- trouyant dans lour puroisso respective. Ql||||^ proofs-verbal a^i|4 bomologud 
par lea^ ddldguds dcs deux oouit^s do Chateaufuny ot de LaprairKle 2G uvril 
■^^ 1883, mnlgr^ {'opposition du dcmaodeur et de U |$rajide mi^prvtlBe oontri- 
* bunblesde St. Isidore: ' .-' "^ ^ ^V. 

■ Que de lour o6t^ les habitantt iio St. Isidore ayant r<$ussi ^ fuiire ou^t uno 
itetio de 124 arpcnts de In premiere, et partant du villiigc St. Isidore J^Want 
ala dite'lSfito Sto. Mar^ucritCj ot pa8.san{ par la'ltution projotde du ohoniiu dc 
^ ' " ^ "for, en verrtfe du proc«i8-^oi(i(»\ do A. J. "A. Roborgo, dealer, surintbndant sp«$oial, 
•• ^te^ eni4ii|p.du 19 jUil^, dc la m^tucann^c, la dito route Landry iSst dcvenuo inutile 
. WKL outiipntribuabt||Nit iiit^resMtde la corporation de St. Isidopo ; 

T^ Que ce voyant, le con»eil da oomt<S de Lapruirie,' iiL la demande du opnscil Ae , 

•f/ /' *Ja cprporatiou do'St. Isidore,' attti^t lo'jlS fdvrier dernier, Domm<S' i^t' J. A.. 

■ jf^Bmetgc, ieirint||dant 4ip<Sciitt||ui Or^onnant de visiter les lieuz merltionnds 

,*\ "^aos Ic proo£%-verTOl du dit I^aodry .«t de faire rapport et drbas^r un procds- 

verb^tj ai'il y a7itH^||b<) a I'effol d'ablKl^r mpaiueodor le"^ proems- verbal du dit 

e l^<j|RRotl^e, aurait en Oiimdqaoncc, 4e 25 fdvriet dernier fait 

oc6*-ve^hal»aniiul»n( et abrog^aiit le proofs-verbal du dit Landry, 

nwAverbaf, Ip'dit Eobergo,'ca 6t6 qusuite ddposer au bureau^dtr" 

. ,,^^ ioifnidu ooutd 'de.Lapfairio qui aVait pfis I'iaitiative. ''"'9. _ 

<^'^ ' Que la .^butoVkbolie par ce dofnier procds-verbal, se trouvant partiedans le 

^' Iwcftmtis dq liiprairid et' partie"' dans lefe-comt^ do Chateauguay, le secrdtairo-trdso-' 

M- ^' ' "^T 4^ ^^^^^ ^^ Laprairib, aiirail par avis en date dn 25 (&vrier dernier, oon- 

'^ :«oqud, suivunt la loi, une session sp^oiale du bureau des dtSleguds des aoint6s 

■ ^^ de I .aj pr ai fic et de Chate a ugu a y , a u vill a go de Eaprairie , pour le fl mars d fit^ 

nier, ^ diz heures de I'avant-inidi, que le dit avis a 6td signifid suivant la loi ^ 

ious les ddldguds des dits deux oomt^i, entr'autros A^aroiase PeapanJis, ^uier,, . 



„ Laini^ 
et dres.'T^j 
r loqUtel dc 
* dit. con 




m-\ 



if. 






/" 






•v ♦. 



€OUR SUPditlRURB, 1886. 



■ ^■■■i 



mairo d« la p«roi^ d« C'Jutaaugmijr, (lament nomrmJ par le oonwil du (lit conittf W. Hoytii 

do Ch,.U»u;,u„y, lo 11 ,nft„ IHS5. Iti .lit Dj<p,ir>i*, ayant uco.,ptrf «l*j l«K« ot j^h, h!iw»u 

oooupi depui.1 lu ditfl cbur^e ainai quu Mri Urd Cirdinnl, iiomrod en memo tenipe 

que lui 4 la dite ohargo. Qua le« iiit^rt)NM$i a k route La.i.lry, domioitliH danit U 

paroisseSte. Pliilom^n'), OKiMaat do oonniTeiioo avao Hwilo Vanior, Mor^taire- 

U^soricr du onnttoil du oomt45 do (Jh.itoauguay, oo doriiier n convoqu* uno oMera- 

bido du dit ooDMil pour lo iuar<« dojnior, (188l}) 0811 do nouimur |e priSrot, lus 

ddl<5guA« le* auditeurs, rooovoir lea ooiuptoa du aeordtairj-tr^iorior, ot pour 

prendre to ooniid^ratioo le rapport do I'iiigdnieur civil sur I'dtat doa bdtiue!< de | 

Ja Cour, du bureau d'onresinromontot du buroau du grofficr, et pour ddlib<5ror 

aur toutea autroa queHlioui qui pourraieiit ho prdsontor dovant l« ooii»eil, que l« ' 

6 nrara, tftaioot prd«nU k U dito OMombido, le prdfet, Antoino Hdbort, ct toua 

lea wembros du dit oon^oil; H roiooptiori do Fran9.)i8 Dabois, maire do St. 
Antoine AbU et du dit Nuroiiae Dcaparois. 

^Qu'4 oetto||ioujbldc aurait coiupiru, Antoine Prud'bomuio, ouUivatour d^ 
Sto. Philoeuine ot ihttSrem* H. lu formoturo do la route Lniidry, pir aon procu- 
rear, et quo la ot alors aynnt ddmontrd qu'il dtalt intdros«5, il aurait fait 00a- 
naitre aux cooaeillers prdsonU que I'avis do oon»oontiou n'uvait paa 6t6 aignifid 
Buivnot la ioi A tous los mombroa abwnts ot nommdmout au dit Nurcisso Dos- 
parois, et co, eu produisant Tenveloppo adros^o ii 00 domior par lo dit Bnaile 
Vanior et portant I'dnnipo du 24 Idvrier I88fi ; quo lo dit Prud'homme, par 
aou proourour aurait dc j)ius oxposd au dit conseil qu'il no pouvait fitre prooddd 
au renaplaooment du prdfot et dea ddldguda sorUant do charge, qu'A aa seasion ' 
g^ndralc & etre tenue lo .second mcrcredi do luara. 

Quo nonobstant telle roprdientatiou lo dit coasoil aurait lo dit jour, 6 niara 

' • dernier, dlu ot nomnid Antoine Hdbcrt, prdfot du dit couitd ct Medard Cardinal 

«t le ddfondeur, deux doa uiemtros du dit conseil, ddld^udn, niettant do c6td le 

^ dit Nuroisso Desparois conimo ddld;?ud av^nt loipiratioa do sa ohdrgo, ot ce illd- 

galement en contravention au Code Municipal, 

Que le prefet ayant pr8(d sorraont d'offioo ot lea dits Cardinal et Stewart, 
«jant oooupd la dite charge stance tenante, il se trouvait y avoir quatre deld- 
guda pour io dit oooiitd au lieu do trois autorisds par lo Code. ' 

Que le dentandeur croit vrnimont que lo coni|^i|nin8i procddd A la nomination 
de son pr^fet et dea dits ddldguds pour ('"iif^^^f marcho de la procddure 
adoptdo par lo seordtaire-trdsoricr du oousoil fl|||pPfil du comte do Iiaprairie ct 
cmpvcher par oe moycn I'boujologation du ^063-verbal du dit Koberge, Ic 9 
mars, par le bureau des ddldguds des coiutd.i do Liiprairie et do Chatoauguay 
convoqud comme susdit. Quo Ic demandeur propridtairo do biens injposablos 
dans la paroiase St. I^^idorc dans le conitd de Laprairic, (la dite paroiese et lo 
dit oomtd Toisins de la paroisso Sto. PhiloniAno ot du oointd do Chatoaugua;) 
est intdressd 4 00 quo le dit Narcisso Dosparois, un dos ddldguds de la corpora-'' 
tion^du oomtd de Chateauguay, continue k exercer sa charge et ogisse et si^go 
<;ommo tel, <iomme susdit, le 9 uiars conrant, ct jusfju'^ I'expiratioa da temps 
pour tcqa el ifudtd n ommd. ' Q \i'e ,1c ddfondeur ten a nt la dite cha ri^o dc ddl dgud 



m»" 



/• 



-»te1 




tt/ol.' "^I 



262 






H.i 



JollA 



u 



Dojon fond^ Ik (leroan<l<nr qu'il oa«M) <l» tenir la tJit« (<liiir){a at par)fint d'an oxermr lea 

Hitwart TonfltliinN ut Ich nUributioiiK, ut (|uu Ut Ui^laiidtiur, vft, m |i«niiUna« ik looeptflr 

•t tonir la ditii nlmrxt) til n'^iitnt o*Mironit^ iiui uxt((itiiOM tie lit |oi pobr In rem- 

piir, nml|;rd m notiiiaotinri ill^K**!"* "*t devunu pawibU ti'una Kman4« n'eio<]- 

tiatit pAM liOO ^ (tiru pKy<iu uu ruouTour gdnt^rul do U I'rof Id^a. L«a ooti' 

,eluiiiniiii duiuunJunt r<<iuutiation d'uii kriH', oauinjuttdtnt ao ddflsndaur du ooni- 

jmrnitrp, uto., |<iur r^poiidru ^ la ditD roqu^tu libolMo dt ddiiioiitrer at prouver 

I'autoritd en vertu da lii<|uullfl, il m priiiflt ik tanir, d'lMurpur la diUs otiarKo do 

d($l^gu<^. Qu'il iM)H dit et dduUrd pur U; ju^ui^otit k interrenir quo lo dit ddfen- 

doiir tutnt ot aaur|H) ill4$Kaloruunt lu ditu oh.irt^u du ddli^j^ud, (|u'il mii axolu «t 

ddpoaKddc do lu diU) ohar^^u et qu'il lui wtit oid(iiin(S du uuMwr do la tonir, ot qu'il 

loit oondiiiiitid 4 jmyct unu uiuonde n'ukut'xlaDt pai |4(H) 4 Atre paj<So an 

- — - ret-efttur-^ditdra) do l.t Province. 

Lo ddfondour tout on niunt l«ri all(}g«tioai do la roquAte « plaidd divert 
moyen* do ddi'uuae. 

Par lo premier, il pn^tond qu'il n'jr a pao lieu ill prooddor par la Toie eItr■o^ 
dinairo du bref do Qim Wnrranto, duns le oim notuol, mniH que lo houI proo4d6 
qui pouvuit fitro adopld dtait oelui indiqud pi|r I'artiolo 346 du Code MunioipaJ, 
qui 00 lit oomoio auit : ' ' 

" Tbute nooiiriatiou do oonooillor faito |wr Ion diooteura pout Atre oontoal^o par 
un oandidat ou par oinq dleotcurs munioipaui pour cauae do violonoo, do corrup- 
tion, do fraude oa d'iaoapaoiui, ou pour ddfuut d'oboervatioa doa Tormalitda 
eaaentiotlos." Jo o* puia admottre ootte prdtontion oommo bion fond<$e, paro* 
<|ue oot article oat Itmitd au oaa do la noniination do oonHoillor, ot quo auivant 
moi ootte diitpoaition du Code Muoioipal no pout Olre appliqudo quo pour lo oa* 
y iudiqud,' ot ne pout dtre dtendue d'un oaa ik un autre. 

Par le aeoond moyon le ddfoadeur prdtend que lo douiandeur qui r6aide dana 
le oomtd do Laprairie oil.il aaea propridtds, n'oat paa nuffiiammont iatdreaa^, 
dana lo aena do la lot, pour lui permottre d'udoptor lo preaotit proodJd oontre le 
ddfondeur, ot pour , contester la ?alidit($ do aa Domiaatioo comme d^ldgud d'ua 
autre oontd. 
^.: La loi qui perknet lo procddd par Quo Warranto, no d^nit pM le degrd, ni la 

^^n d'iQUSrfit que doit avoir oelui qui I'adopte, I'ajrtiole 1016, da Code de Pro- 
cedure Oivile dit: " Que toute peroopne intdroaa^a peat porter {dainte loraqu'ua 
iadivida, uaarpe, prend aana permiaaion, tientou ezeree ilMgalament una charge 
publique, etc..." II n'eat pas ndoeaoaire que oot int^rdt ooit poraiatant et ait uno 
durtfe ploaou iqoina longue, nidail aaffit d'apr^ oetartiole, qaele poamivant tit 
no intdidt apprdoiable au tempa de la poursuite. Or, le deoiaodeur 6tant int^ 
reaad dana le proodvverbal 4 dtre aouwia aux (I6\6ga6i, il <tait par ooatre-oo|ip 
int^reaa^ & oo quo oe procda-verbitl fdt aoumia 4 Tapprdoi^tioa de tola diligai*- 
plat6t qo'& d'autres, oet intdrSt me purutt auffiaaat dana Itaeoi du Code. ■ 

J'arrivo maintcnant & ane qneation importunte do la oaaae, qai est de savoir 
si le demandeur a altdgu6 et prouvd une usurpation ou ddtration auffiBantas par ' . 
le ddt'endeur de la charge de ddldju6 en aupposaot, sa nomination oommt tolla -- 



* 



1- 



COUR SUPJtJlIBURK, IM$. 



ilMgttk, J« itroU qu«. h ri,.,ii.^to aon»icnl nno alld;ptIoD .ufBiAoto k «« •ujot, an 
di-iru urn lo .IdJVn.lour tioiit it UMirfw 1. ol,«r«o, niAlt il m nuniiiit pAi it 

UUhT' ''''^""'' '"**"'*' '"'""'""'• ''"*" '"'"* '* •'" "" '" ""'• P"'- '''"^'"'" 
I0I« lilt. T.mU pflrM)nti« iiUt<rM<'<io pooif putor plHinto lorwqu'un ipdividu 

, twui^., pron.l Man* fHTtiiiMimi, tiunt ou osaro* ilU'iKnl«incnt VMabargc publi^uti, 
• to, T.mmM a,w e«proMi/Hm lo.liqu«nt .,u.. U {xinouH.' .lont on mo |.infnl «rt daiif 
I nolo .lotuol d'u-urp.,r, d« pniM.Iro, do l«»ir ou exorour la oJwrgo, il Taut qu'jl j 
ait uetiun do aa pArt.aa »oIoiiIi$muIo a-ina I'aoto ou Hoa 'd<!air dfl la fairo oe aufBt 
piw. o.r aiora il inudrait quo In C(mJ.', pour •yprimor oa^le idd«, dir»it : 
" lowquo quoiqu'un v«ut ou d.Uiro tunrper, prmdre, Unit OU exorcrr," oe qui 
ft .lurm p,u, U iv<»,„o po, t6o. II n« m.fBt paa non plua que d'autrea tela quo laa 
oonm«||e«, «iont In volonto ou |« d,J-ir .,u'il uaurpe, pronno, tienne ou exeroo, oolte 
oharKe, m U nommant & cot effot. I/acto d^a oonaeiUera do nonimor lo ddfeo- 
dour 4 la charge do ddl(5«u<5 n'oat paa auffinnnt pour f«ir« prdaumor la »olon1(< du 
ddrondour d'agir aotuollemont. Dupr^M rid*5e raiaorlant do* eiproaaioni du ( .'odo 
cMt 1„ ddfondeur qui dof t agir aotivomcnt ot aotucllcmont, o'oat ainai que lo d<5ol. 
dont. Km autouraqui ont tr/iitiJ do cotto matii^re d'aprda le droit anglaia d'oii eal 
UrA, no.ro loi aur oe «ujet. Vuioi co quo dit High, on parlant da Quo Warranto, 
paragraph 627. " To |,.y tho foundation for ^rantinRaan information in the 
nature of a Quo Warranto, totoat tho ri^ht or title to an offioo (oonitne dana le 
caa notuol) there rauat in all caaoa have boon an actual posaoaaion and uaor of the 
fran-hiao. It ia not »uffioiout, therefore, that the poraon againat whom the jurii- 
didtion la invoked ahould havo merely olaimod the right to Uke the offieiul oath 
but an absolute uaer luuat aUo bo shown." 

Le moino autour, dana une note au bna do la pa^e ot indiqude dana le md.ne 
parngraphe, une cause do Kingw. Whitwoll, oii il fuit dire au juge Duller, 
" No instanoe baa been produced in which the Court have granted ao informa- 
tion in tho nature of Quo Warranto, where the party againat whom" it waa 
applied for has not boon in the aotoal posaeaaion of the office. No auoh inntanoe 
can have happened and all the cases cited are the other way." . 

Dana Tespdoo de oette cause il n'y a paa de preuve de Vat^twd uturpation, 
factual poutition of the office. Le ddfendeur a 6Ui nommd k la obarge de 
d«5l6gu<J du oomtd de Chateauguay le 6 mara dernier, maia rien no fbit voir qa'il 
avalt fait auoun aote d« possession ou usurpation aotuelle de la dite obarge de U 
requftte qui eat datde du m«me jour 6 mara.^ £o I'abaenoe de telle preuvo.'it 
sans eiltrer dans lo mdrite de la question de salroir si le ddfendeur a dtd incle- 
ment nonund 4 la dite charge de ddldgud je erois que la requdte libellde en oette 
°"""K^2^^.«"»^oy«5o, et le bref de Quo Warrant^, disaout rrfuofoerf.) If tout 
iToo oMeiMk!-/ 

7%A«V,^fNsotr, pour le demandcur. . '• ' * , 

Seert et Laurmdeau, pour le ddfendeur. » - 




v^ 



<t 






? 



.A 



464 



COUJX DE UfcVISrON, 1S8(J. 



% 






COUtf DE REVISION, 188^. 

. MONTREAL, 30j.JJJlN 1886. 
Coram ToBRANCE, jETT*f-Ot BtjClIANAN, J.J. 

• /-^ ; DUNBAR BROWNE, 

; -v GEO. BROWNE, - ■ ^A 



Dkmandeuii 



DApRNDEun. 



Jtoii :— Que dans I'cspece il s'agit dun legs fait i^arge et norrrtun logs conditionnol ; 
' ,' que partant, la dite charge nest j»as suspensWe dulegs lui-mtime qui doit Otrb 
cooaidcre coRime pur et simple u pnrtir uu d(>c6s du tcatnteur. ' 

a- ■ ' '^ •.■ -i .• 

Lc jugemcnt de la Cour Sgporicurc (Taschoreou, J.), so lit comBric snit : > ' : 

,;^'-' La Conr, etc, . -.v^^:. ■ , ' •![ _ . ' . :...'.._:...' . :.\ . " _. Il-'', a:.:..,;.. .^'_ 

Ait$!ndu que le dentAndciir rdclai^ par .son action la «;onii»e d(» cent viniift 

piaBtrea. pour trofe»iii<yi8 do li)yer, a raison do quarante piastres par nioi.Sj (5chus 

le vingt fevrier mil huit cent quatre-vinjit-six, en vcrtu d'nn baiLverbal, in4er- 

TenUventre les pa;ttief,,^de la 'maison <d<S-iijrni5e souS le No. do la terrace 

Wellington ct le No. Vi'li do la «uc Kte. O.ilhcfine, en la Cit<S de-Montrdal, et 

deniande luTdsiliation du dit-bail et Tcirputsion^u deCondeur ; * . 

Attendu que lc d«Sfendcur nie Tcxistcnce dii iait bail et aliuguc que .si tel^bail 

a 4t(5 passd, c'est par suite d'une efrcur dd%oit d« la part du'tlit ddt'endeur; 

que la mafson en question n'a jahiais appartcno an demandcnr, mais qu'cllc est 

la propriet^'dtl ddfend^ur lur-fliiJine, CQinmc legataire uuivergd i^'son pdre^ feu 

George Browfie, aux terjlics da- tcstanifent de ce d(^ief, regu de^t Mti^, 

Jobinj notaire,^L USmcfins, i^^-Montrdal, le viugt-'six aoQt mil« huit cent: soixante- 



et-seiite j'-que par'un legs particulj^j'jKiit t)u dit tcstanieqt, iPf.t^tateur avtiit 
bieih l^gu6. la dite maisofl auNleniandcur, mais que le dit li^s tjtai'"*^'''^" — '"^ 




itiontiel?/ 
soi*\ 



» et ne devait prendre, effet qub 6i„ le dit denrandcur ri>glait de coi 
' frere Thomas Ricbardsop Browne, et obtendi| de j|qi u.ne quittance 

de la part du dit Thomas Richard.'ftMi Browne, dan.s le douaireprdfix appartenant 

■aux cni/ints du testateur .et de feuc - Dame Ann Maria' JaWieson, son Spouse; 

que le dit dcmand^ur ne s'4tant pas encore Boumis a la dite condition, le dit legs 

^ partjculier «5tait eqcore'en suspchs et .le demandcnr sans atwJup droit d(5| pro- 

pridtdjRour 1? pr^sertt, dans et sur la maisdp en question ; ' » 

Considt^raht que le demandcnr, a dQniAt (Stabli ,cnt>pr6ave,»par les dents . 
■ dmands dn' d^fendeur lui-niem§ et par Ics proprcs admissions d? ce denBer 
consigndes au dos.sier rexist^nctf du .b^d^lldguj5 en Taction ; ■ jj&» 

Con8ic|^r.ant qu'au nioycn'dn dit bail^ le dit demandeur a 4^ dftut^nt^mis efi 
possession l<?gale de son ditjiegs, ct dp )*" mai^orKqui en fait I'objet, et ,qu% le 
d^fendMir a occupd et occupe la dite n^aison cotimic localaire du dit demdndeur ; ~ 
wvJJonisiddrant quc.par les termesAu dit legjrparliculier, fait au demandeur, et 
resemble dcs dispositions testamentairet.d/. tt^-^tatcyr, il est dvidcnt quejfel^^ 
legs "partiouli^ n'est "pas conditionij&l^litt sjfbor.donnd au .i;6glemeni^a«e J& 
utaire devra'opdrcr avcc son t'h&i^^i^iias liichard^on Browne, ifl| qjrl 



m 



w 



^. 



■I » 



OOUR- DE RlSVISION, 1886. 



'265 



' fe. 



t , 



est fait & charge du dit rdglemont et de I'obtention de la quittance y iuentioun6c' ; D; Browne 

que cotte charge n'est pas aaspenstve du legs lui-mfimo, et que, conRdqwmiuent, qoo. ^Browne. 

Ic dfcit du demandeur d. la propridf<} de.la dite maisoD lui a it6 d^fiTiitivemont 

acquis dds Tinstont do la mort dui-tostateur, et ne pent mainteDant lui 6tro 

contestd: (13 Laurent, Nou. 54^ et scq.; 9 Buronton, Kos. 314 et seq.; C '. * 

Toullier, Noh. 617 et ^q. j Furgolc, ch. 7, scctloa 3, No, 42 ; 22 DemWoinbey 

No8. 310 et seq. i-Iioliandde Villarguos, Vo. condition, No. ITS); ,, 

Ucjetfe la ddfensr, muiuticnt raction,'% en cons^uience, casse, rd«liq>'-et.'^ 
nntaulc a toutcs fins que do droit Ic aiisdit bad, et cdndiimne le dC'fend^ir ii .^\ 

donrter I'entidre poasessiori dea dits lieiix lou^a, au denupdour, et ill ddf^iit par . ' ' » 
lui de ce fairo Sous trois jours de la signi^oatibn a Itti faite des p/dsentei", . ' „ 
ordonoe que le dit dtSfendeur^^ lea siena et soua k>cataire8 soie^t expftlsd'a des dits -'^ 

lieux, suivant U loi, et tous- lea biena mcubles qui a'y troaveronjtl Hmis siar>le •. 
carreau ; ' ■ ■ ■ • , ,5-'. ./ ..-,' '' ,-'— 

Gondamnc en outre Ic dit d^fendcar ii payer jiu dit deniaodeur la we aomme .. ■. '- 
de cent vingt piastres, avec interot 4 compter du vin«>t-trois f'dvner. mil buit 
cent quatre-vingt-six, jour dc I'ussiignation, et los ddpens distraita i ~" 
Geoffrion, Dorion, Luflcur et Rinfref, procureursf du depiundeur. 

Eu rdvision, rhonorablojusje Torrance dit : \ 'j 

Action' by lessor again.st lessee. The lesst'e denied thd. iitl^ofjtbo lessor to . ' 
the property leased^ and allaged that the lessee , was propfietor. "The whajflif ' 
.-question turnod upon the tonus of the will of th*late George Browi e, architet^J" ' 
The words- were : '^ f give, devise and bequeath unto my son, Dunjur Browne,* 
the hofise'and Remises now <tecupi(ul by liic, Kt'i'»g number six of i Wellington 
terrace, and a part of lot No. 1384 of St. Autoine ward, jn the saia, city, with . . 
all the furqiture, etc., e'tfe! I give, devisq and bequeath the said iJniBOveablo " 
propmy tpiny said son, Dunbar Browne, us well for his owa benefi||*for the >^ 
benefit of his wife and children, and I substitute the same to-his sai^liUdreri, ' 
subject, however, in case his wife* shjould survive him to the usufruct tliereof, 
which I give, devise and bequeatfi to her during her lifetim^rom ai^ after hif.;,^ 
' death.' I make the present devise and Jiequest to my said 806 Dunbar 
Browne* and to hfs said ^c and children on and subject to the Condition that 
he s^tle with .my eldes^n, Thomas Richardson Browne (for whom, and oa 
Who?e account, I have pltid large sums of money), and. obtain from him a release 
,and diseharge of his share of bia mother'a dower or marriage settlemepf, or that 
his toid wife and |aid cUifdren do so should he die before t^uch release an3 ' -J^ 
discharge be obtained." The codieile, 4th July, 1879, revokes the legacy of ^* 

n^ov^eabJeS in these wbrd§ :" Second clause of my \yill-. I cah^J tlje bequest . V 

of the moveables bequeathed to my aoi> Dunbar Bro*ne by this clause, -tesfricfe- . " ' " ^ 

ing aaiiji bequest tio the'" real estatiJ therein bientic'ned on • ithe;>o(Srirti©n8 *y. ' i ' ■' ' 

expressed." \ Is* this bequeii suapended by at condition that Dunbar Browne . '. ' ' ^ ' ' 
only take- (he beqiiesf after obtaining a discha^e, or has it ye.'-ted immediately ,■" ' ^.. 
by the deaih of the testator^ "^lic Court^has. helcl Hhat tbe bequest Wifs/not ;?^ k 7' 

suapettged/bjitj?este<f ilnm%ately, feeing 13; Laurent, "No?. 546 et seq.'; alls -• V' 

Duruiitou, Nk 314 A seq.-;, 6 Toullier, Nos. 5l7 *t.scq. ; , Furg^ole, cup. is. 



■'i 





■ \ ' . 



'2^6 



COUR DE REVISION, 1886. 



'D. Browne 3 ^^ 42 ; 22 Demolombe, Nos. 310. et seq. ; Rolland di'ltTillarauos vs. Condi- 

Qeo. Urdwne.tiopf No.- 178.* WjB agree to confiraii The legacy ^9ted immediately^- The 

- ,, '■ le^ite shall hold hacmleRS the estate ^oibst the claims of ThomaSi^. Browne, 

arising front the oAViefi mentioned. The condition is rcsolutof]^ and nofcfsuspen- 

' give. The testator w»a8 father of legatee. Is it likely that he wished the 

* legacy of aliment to be refused toliis sbu until he found the absei^ee to get his' 

* ;■ discharge? ' \ 

^ ' Jugement colifirm^. 

• , ,, . (?6o/mn, i>omn e<\/?tn/re<, pour le demandeur. \ 

^-^^^^^^ Judah, Srcencftaud et Bemtfit, font le deknicur: ,"''"" ^ '^' 



4f 



■«r 



i^«' i 



'V'-- 



C6URT OF QUEEN'S BfiNdll, 1886. ■' 
^.---;'v:--:^^-r '--'•- Appeal .Side, :,-^-^-:^J^;--;----^--— ■ - 

r. * - [■""' ' ' MONTREAt. '\ " V-v, . 

JPresent : Dorion, G.J., Cboss, J., J^nk, J., aad Baby, J. 

NATHAN KE^JNEDy, "-f ' A 

"^ " *' • Defendant iji the Court below, 



: xa:. . 



■ ■'■ ^' :. ^ ■*«> • ♦ * . ,•■•..."*" 

THE EXorfANGE BANK OF CANADA, 

* . ■ " '' 

Plaintiffi in the Court below. 

REBPVN&INm 

latTRiskL, Angus tl^tb, 18S3.- 
" This is to certify tbat I, Nathan, Kennedy, cattle exporter, iiereby a{rree and bind my- 
'< self to p&y to J. McSbaoe, jun., or order, the sum of two thousand dollar8,Vor all the tpate 
"from date till clou qf napiffOtion that he has on Beav/r Line Steam&r»,"Allan Line^Mid all 
" other Line Steamer/, the aum of one thousand ddUare I noW pay 1n cash— and th^m of 
■'.one thonsand dollars I bind and pledge myself to^ay to J.^McSbane, jun., ororder^ on or 
" about 2Sth November^ 1883. It is under stood mat this amount of two thousand ispai^w 
J' premium, over ttiid above the yate qffreighyto^ be paid for said^^teamers to agents or ship 

"' owners." 1 ' • / ' '"' ■ ' 

. . . / • , ^Signed),; N. KENNEDY. 

HEL|2,:-fTbat t|ie above is a promissory ilote and negotiable. » 

,TIii8 is m action' brought lay tie Exchange Bank, for the recovery of 81,00(t 

and interest, which action i8> based on the writing or agreement above set forth. 

The plointiflFs' alip^ that this note or writing obligatory was ^iily endorsed 
and delivered to tliem. for value received, by the said J.'-McShatte, jun., aAd 
that Kennedy faijed to pay the same whefi it became due. -• :#. <• 

To this action the defendant pleaded inter alia that this documehfWas not 
a promissory note, tliat i|t was not negotiable, anif th«t in consequence, the bank , 
Ead'no title to it upon which they could bring an !>^|itt>- \'\' . 

> In the Superior Court Mr. Justice Torrance disnuneed the defendant's plea,--, 
and gave jiidgmetJein ftivor of tjie plaintiff for -the full amountclaimed, from , 
wbicb judgment the present appeal is taken 1 • >, 




-!%%■ ; ' , i ■' ■ 









COURT OF, QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



267 



The following is the jud<?ment of the Court of AppoiJ. ^ 

Cross; J.— The liquidators of the Exohlfngc Bank sue Kennedy on an ao-TheE»clmnge 



\ 



and 



knowledgmeot given by him of indebtedness to James McShanc, jr., payable to 
his order and by hiita endorsed, Which they beoatoo possessed of, being among 
the mi^nimtints of the bank passing into theif hands as liquidators. -"Kennedy 
defends on the grouad that the document is aot a promissory note, therefore not 
negotiable, and that he got no value for it. . 

r find the documeikt to be an absolute undertaking to pay, and that for valae 
received, the nature of which v^lue is.cxpUiiQed in. the docuuiient, viz a pre- 
mium on space which McShane had purchased in the Allan line- of steamers for 
the conveyance of cattle to Jjngiaftd. • I, therefore, consider it a promissory note 
and- negoliiuble. On the question as to whether value was received, ^e ha'veenUi 

- the evidenlse of the endorser, who says in effect that the ncjle was only Uf^\)&yiaM^ 
in case there was a profit r^aliaiSSd by Kennedy, and Kennedy raalized n^^ltlr^ft^R 
"therefore, he concludes that the note should not be paid, but I do not think ^l 
McShane's evidence can thus Jivail trf contradict the terms of the written instru- 
•me^t signed by Kennedy liimself. As to the objection thsds' it' ^d1jot/%«ar ^ 
the note or vouchej, was the .property of the bank; it miy be answered that' it :. 
was in their possessioo, endorsed by the payer, who was at the time their debtor* 
"to a large amount, so it should be presumed to be their property even although 
not entered in their books. Methane almost admits the fact by saying that the 

' amount was to be placed to his credit vS'lien collected.' I think the judgment of 
the Superior Court should be confirmed, and the courtare unanimously of that 

opinion. , • '.; 

Judgment confirmed with*,costs. ' , ' , . , , 

-Mi^a8tir,MiUcbinson A Wcii^, Attorm , , \ .^ 



Bai)k«r 
Cauiitla. 



..i^*? 



•■ji"''' 






m. 

n 









■^f: 




. 




1 






'% 




% 



*^.'.'i-^' 



-^ 



CO UW OB|feEyiEW, 1886. ■ ^■ 

MCWJlREAL, JUNE 3o/b, 1886. . , , .\ 

, jf., and LORANQEB, J,, 



Present^,— Johnson, J.jI'apine 






No. 293^. |.|. 

E/'LGBLANO bt All., 



ftilNTIFFS: 



ViT 



"' ■ . ^. BE 

., St? 

■■ ■. ■• : ■■■, " :* 

Hipo :— TU«it ail agreem^ht, by an advi 



,.' :X. 



JPARI/ANT, 



DBnNDiLNtj 



cate 



toVhe effect that in the event of his loE^og a. ' 
^case be should deceive nothing except |;fi|aDd qostrbf epque.te, an4 in : .^ 

Se eT8B4oif his winning the case he should receive;airthe damages jtecp^ered, Is i? 
egal, Improper and d)!/rogatar^ lo the proftss8|i, and will not be^ enforced^ 
if-?'-^' courts. /f ■ " ' » ... ■:-^' -,"" ?. ■ 

'■ Johnson, J.— %th pn/ties inscribe tj^^c jttdgmSdt'iii this case for revie^. Jlhe 
plaiatiffa want tojKt mjwjB than the court below gate them, andth^ deftndi&ts 



m,.' 

^^l^% 




-T V 









" i*: 



/ 






■^ . 4(f"- 









288 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1886. 



^ 
*• 



'^i 



«si 



;'^et at,^""" **"'^ "^ ^'*^° """y *'™°» *•>«" •"**•» »•"»* w'liot they have, TJio action was 

„' v*. J brought te recover $815 as duo to plaintiffa (a,arm of attorneyB in MoBtreol) by 

«.Beaupa«ant a,eir client, the "defendant, in the district of Richelieu, fottaxo^ oosttin a oise 
. ' whore he was plaintiff against one Dufresne ; and for fees artd travelling expenses 
and telegrams, and also for the costs of the oases of Bmuparlaut vs. Dubeau ^t 
aJ., apd of Towier vs. Boauparlant arid of Phroesfkoski vs. , BeauparUnt, and a^ 
sum of 850 asked by i supplementary demand, and erroneously oBI^^ed in the 
declaration. The action was met by the defendant by a peremptory exception 
, .alleging thnt the plaintiffs hqd made a special a{jreement.with him on the 7th ' 

Febfuary, 1881, by which they were not ontitied to-recover their ooats from him 
' ■ JC ^^'^ °**° "^ Bufresne in the Superior Court>and afterwawb had made anothet 
^(Oipoement (12th July, 1883,) by which they mutually disnuargea eaoh other aa ' 
to tjiat case up to that time, and a$ to the others he piea««d that he omiy owed- 
?98,q6, and .deposited -6 125 in court. By the fiiit agreement which the defeifc. _ 
dant set up it was covenanted that Boisyert was ^tp get.jflt'hing if he U>st the 
case, except $10, payable on demand, apd the coats of the cdquete; and in case 
he won it he was tQ take a|l the damages for himself, and in case' the defendants 
.should become ijifiolirenlrafid unable to pay damages the defendant in the fvresent. 
_o«sc, Beauparliint, was to pay his lawyer, the present plaintiff, 830, As to this 
■ «greeigent of February, 1881^ I see it authorized Boisvcrt to represent the party 
iri the Circuit Court, ^but that is nothing, for the 8ttbBequ(5'nt agreement ratified 
what was done in *th^ Superior Court, thc^ agreement; JJ^S' first one, isjjiainly 
illega^l on thefaqp (^,H, improper and derogatory to ^e profession and to the 
detriment of the public, and if the^se depend on- that I would not hold myself 
bound*to give any.erfo6t'to it'or put any^constf notion upon it; bat, the rights of 
/^neither piirfji»fiow any longer depend on. fhcugreemenl; of February 7, 1881, for 
by that ol" Jul^, 1883, it was coVenanfed -that b(fth parties wera-d^chai^ed from 
its operation, ind from that moment it became non-existent. It is of course 
evident jl^t^l^ 'dnly the firat agrCemcDt had been, made the plainiiif had no-action 
at all uD:^fer^t,^ Therefore all we. have tdoojc to is the.seoond agreement. This . 
last .s^gA^t Bpisvert bad fulfilled his engagements under,^e first agreemj^t and " 
'^"^, ^W'p^*^ f'o™ •■'!' obligations under it, andthb expVession used m» that if 
, ^as r^^M^, and mutual discharges were given by the parties d tonte* finsq^t^ - 
.de'dmit. Besides thi^, it was agreed thatMf thf defendants »i# the. D^resne 
case should ga to review or to appe|||fcp1^rt-was,to represeirf J^uparlmirt'iA 
those-ooufts, and Would be entitledTb'gcl^is costs from bis-oHents if h^ low fehfj' 
caSe there; audit was also agreed. that askBois vert had not been sufflciWly r§. 
nmnerated' for all the trouble he had tam, he was tOo gefany Mamag«riHii.ffered 
subsequently to the judgment of the Superior Court. Thpre were aonif; ^ir, 
details agreed upon, but they have ift) direct Jtetring on the question now w!fot« 
us. The plaiatirs interpretation of tliia'secooU agreement is. that ^t is *etro- 
. active; and revives his' rights atcommQu 'law to get costs from bis-plieot.*, m if 
he hadqcver renounced those rights;. My vjew of it is that it ^<!ly opiated 
from that time forwayd, and did iiot go .biick ; and reinstute the pcm^ iq tk* 
' rights of ah attorney against his client, wlM hg .had renounced by' the a^- 
nient of February, It inarcly>aid;';" fl^lhio-? between 08 °in the ^st hm:J 



" ' Hi 






r»n 






:'■''', '■\''''- J' 



COURT O^ BBVIEW, 1S86. 



m" 



Iwtj settled, aqd »» to the (j^ture wo will do so and 80." All that the defendant " ^^^i. 

agrued by the ucte of July to do, ho offered td do by his plea! lt.W0"'"l) '*'<"°"« Baa'^arlanu!, 

fore, maintain the plea andjthe oflpsr it makes. -'JJ^'plaintiflthad got all ho bar- 

gaihed for by the first agreement, which had''^ecn fully carried out at the time 

of the seooni)' one; and from that time forrfi the plea offered him nH he was . t 

cntltled.to. .' ' .. , - ' ' : 

^1. ^B5Zanc, attorney for plaintiffs. ■. *«• " - ; * 

JVcncter, JSaau»oiei7 t& il/arfmeaw, attorncys'lbl" defendants. 



' COURT OP REVIEW, 1886. 

f ■ • • • . 

- "• \ ' ' ' MONTREAL, JUNE 30tii, 188G. 

Present: Torbance, J.;, MiATiiifiu, J., and Bdcdanan, J. 

- ,;;.,' - "^ ^' : '^'No.208t.., ^*^, w ^■__-J, 

" JOSEPH BRODILLARD, ,4 



PiAINTIFF ; 






DfePENDANt. 

ifjiUp : — That t^e proprietor of a stallion ia not responsible for the death of a mnre, which 
. • waslbe result of an error 'dv ooie committGd by tiie stallio.itit the time of the 

connection, if it is not proved tlint the erro^f Ijas for its cause some fault on "the 
• ' part of the proprietor O^he stallion, or of the servants of the propiletor. 



'^ 



T^nRANCB, J. — Action of damages for loss of a mare injured while being 
covered by a stallion belonuing'tp the defend;>nt, ^Tlie latter had charge of Im 
horso and directed him. The proprietor of the mare and tlie owner of thdihol-se . 
w'ere alone together during ^the oper,^ition, and nothiiig was ob3or\red ,^ the time. 
,3ut driving the mare home, the owner noticed Kigns of fatigue and efnaustion ih„ 
Jier; 'he was obliged to Jake her out of the wngnon, and she got worse and didd 
in a few days. A post rnortem wa^ had by ordinary hor.se doctors, and it is in 
cvidence^that.{)art of the rectuw w*s ruptured probably by misdirection of the ' 
horse. There is no proof of any,mismanagcment Jcy the owner of tMe stallion. 
The plaintiff contends .that thl^re ia presumption of fault against the owner of the 
horse who was directing Ihe animaF. Tiie court Jtas found no'prdof of fault, apd - 
dipmissed the actipn. 'It was held in Le Saint vs. Gobe: I. Palais, A. D, 1878f . 
p. 3t5, that the-propirietor of a stallioh is not responsible for the death of a mare 
which was the resultof an errbr deydie committed by the stallion at the (jitne ^ 
the cunneotion, if it ia not proved tliat^the error has for its .CaSjso sojne fault oji 
the part of the.proprlett)r of tiie staUfOn,-or of the^s^tivant, of.; tho, proprietor of 
the sytallion, "or of the servant .of the'pjioprietor.f' .Tiie niafq^ity. ate 6i, opinion" 
that tbe^conoiu^ion arrived at^j^tlje- court; b^owig tiie aoui^d- one.^ Jud^Snt ' 
con6rmed:%ith costs'.', '.' ^ V' 

Mfithieu, J., dis.sefft#d. . • v),,;'; 



■ z"^::- 




ii 



f ^ 

■ -.1 
... . <\ 









./. A. 6erm»i^ ■«itt()rney fclr„plain(ttff; 
J, Flarrl^%id^, a^twa^ MtJ^alciiKtotft. 



>\ 



st>,. 



■■.:'i,'f..,r: 







^r>-. 



^ 












■*-, 






:■«;'■ "•. 






■ » 






:■». 



'■tr 









'270 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1886. 



Piejicnt 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1886.: ■ f 

MUNTREAL, JUNE 1?tii, 188G. 

Johnson, J., Papinkau, J., aad ^Lobanqisii, J 

^ " No. 045.V "• *;■:'-■;■" 

THE EXCIIANO^BANK, 

'•': ,^4 (In Liquidation). 



AND 

PATRICK HERLILY, 

INO 

EDWARD UHAPLm, 



Claimant; 



Held: 



CONTEHTA.VT. 

p., do not anpljBi to cases under the Insolront ' 




That the provisions of Article 4!>4 
Banks Act, 45 Vict., c. 23. -J., , . - 

- Johnson, J._l»btriok Hoilily, IJjiUiiiAant, fjlcdhH claim agaiost the bank' 
for 8H9.19, in order, that ho might be collocated for 26 por cent.— amount of a 
dividend declared by tho liquidator*. TU (|^cad h« would get if successful 
would be $23.84, but his claim was contOiitcH dli the ground that $20.31 Was the 
only aoiountrto the credit of the cluiinant's deposit, and the contestant said this 
had been oJFercd him by the liquidators, together with interest amounling to 
$4.26 moj^f but the claimant »etutned' their cheque. The contejation was 
maintained by the court bejow, and the claimant comes here to have that re- 
viewed. Thjj first question is whether there is any right to come to this court 
under the ciroumstances. Art. 494, C.P.; say* that a review may t>e had upon 
every final judgment from which an appeal lies. This was certainly a final judg- 
ment as between the parties before the court below. But did an appeal also lie 
from it. Sec. 78 of the Insolvent Banks Act, 45 Vic, c. 2?, gives, an appeal 
in the Province of Quebec, in the Court of Queen's Bench "trpta any order or 
decision of the judge in any proceeding under this Act,, by leave of a judge of thi 
court," and the right thus made dependent upon the order of the judge Is furthal 
limited bya proviso in the Same section, that in tht question to be decided oil iit 
the appeal future rights are involved, or the decision is likely to affect other cases 
of a similar nature in the winding up proceedings. I see no^order of judgi 
below; and it was not, and, I think, could not, be suggested that under the 
proviso he could have made such an order. We wct« ^pot bound, under the 
circumstances, thereforo,"tolo»k at the meriti, but we have done so, and are per- 
suaded that Herlily would hj»ve no case- under tho circumstances. Judgment 
dismissing inscription with costs. - ; 

..0€Of5ieCVijp«ey^Vtorney for claimant. 4( " '" ^ 

F. W. Terrill, counsel. ' , -> - . 

GreenthiHds, McCorkill & Guerin, attorneys for contestant, *° 



\W^ 




COUR SUP^BIEURE, 1886. 



271 



COUR SUP^RIEURE, 188C. 

MONTRIIAL, 20 AVRIL 188»i. 
Coram Taschebbau, J. 

Al^BX. VALL&E ts-qUALiTit, 



OEVANWit'll . 



VS. 



• . ^F CLfiCXPnAS LKROUX, 

' *" Dt:FEKDtmt. 

JVuk:—l. Qu'une poursiiite en .domiDa|re»-intur£>tB pour B6duction d'une fiUo miilciii , 
iointe ^ utie demande ea duclaration de t>atcniit6 et pcoaion alimentain' de 
renrnnt, he peut 6tro port6o par un tiiteur (mF Aoe; v 

2. Que daaa uno poursuite de oetto nature il feut Vaggistancc des pire ot mbre, on 
ik leur dofaiit, du tuteur ordinairfe do la 61U« mineure. 

3- Qu'ensupposant nue letuteur arf'rto?aurait Qimlitt,' noiir porterune telle action, 
il devrait d'abord faire enregistrer I'acte ae tutelle et allcguer co fait dajisi 
raction. (Art. 304 q. 0.), « 

Voici le jugemont de la Cour : 

Le8«fait8 de la eauBo et los points ddcidds y sent oliiiroraont ^nono^a. ' 

La Cour ayant entcridu les pdQties par leurs prooureurs rcspcotifs sur le 

nitrite tnnt do la ddfetiso produite par Je dit d«Sreodeur que des deux rdponnes 

en droitrdu ^emandeur ds-qualitd k partie dc latldfenses ayant de plus ozamiotS 

'^ lo procedure ettoutes loB pid0p9 du dossier et delib(5r<5 : " - 

Coosid^rant que la pr<Ssent« action est en dommages-intdrSts de la part d'un • 

tuteur ati hoc pour seduction do la fillc mineuro Rose Legros^ ainsi qu'en 

declaration do paternity de Tenfant qfti serait n<5 du oommeroe oharnel de oette 

dernifire aveo le d^fendeur, et en r^olamation d'une pension alimentaire pour le, 

soutien du dit enfant ; 

Consid^ranii qu'une telle action ne peat etrtf port^c par un tuteur ad hocet 
sans I'assistance des pdre et m^re, ou, & leur ddfout, du tuteur ordinains^de U 
fiUe mineure, sans I'autorit^ des((uols elle edt '6t& incapable de contractor 
; Jfkarlage; attendu que cette action emprqnte toute sa force dela proimcsse de 
-mariasje et de I'ex^cution dq cette mfime promesse, et doit par consequent 
proc^dor de la part d| ceuz dqnt I'au||,oritd seulo eftt pu vallder je mariage» 
(Fournel, s^doction, pp. Ift, H- et 17, Ojiiapitre 2, article 2; SB. L.,_p. 417^; 
Broussoau vs. BMard) j • 

Considdrant que la loi pourvditBa oasMoili «i^ tuteur ad Aoc pent §tre QOmin^ 

et>exercer certains poftvoirs, et que le oas actuol n'eniest pas un. (Code^vil, 

art; 269,303); ; ^ . v ^ - ' ^ 

Considi^raDt quo le tuteur ad hoc &% avait quality pour porter one telle 

action, deyait 4'abord faiite enrogistrer I'aitJte de tutelle, ce (j[u'U n'all^gae pa» 

avoir fait et ce quicst fotal a son notion. (Code C) HI, art. 304) ; , ' 

Consid£rant que la defense en droit ait ea ooos^quience bitm fondle et' qtt^ 

. est inutile d'cxaotiner le m^rite <iei rdponaes en droit produites^ 

Maiam^^t la diSfense- en droit du d^feodeur, et reiivoie Taction du deoiandenr 
^<t-qualif<S, ntieo d^pens, distratts i Messieurs Oatmei,€oraellier et Lajoie, avooats 
dtt d^findieuc . ■ . 

" ; ' L^* ■ '° ; \ D^ffltise en droit maintonue, . 

MoMk et Ratfnes; aVpcais do demandcur ^s-qualit^. *•, ■ 

^ Oaim^t, Con^ttp" ei IiB^rie, mfoests da iihndevir. ,''"' - 



v 



\'- 



i 



1 



ill 



r ^ 



li.- 



% 



-272 



COUR DE RKVI8I0N, 1886. 



■jI. 



COUn DE Rf}VISION, 1880. 

MONTREAL, 30 JULV 1886. 

4*rd»eht(i : Los IIonorablM Juges Dobertv, PAPiNAEt; et Loranobr. 



MICHEL Monrv n al., 



VI, 



CHARLES LANQLOia, 



DAfiNMURB ; 



DfcriHDEOB, 



N 



DAMEO. CUAPLBAU'Wv 



^ 



r 



MICHBL MORIX, BT al., 



€foiltBI(TA«T«. 



:;^-* 






%' 



' J'jofc';— lo. Que la donation dp liicni mobillcrs falte eh tin cOBtfM de maringo par Ic mari 
i sa femine cat vdlaWo entre les partiea sans la formailftfi de I'enregiartumeui 

"-"— ^ ■ (Art. 800, c. c.) , -' ■. '-'—--. c^r: ;: 

2o. Que la dite dunation ne iieut utre alfectt-e qM poiir I«|<Ucfiiftmqttll par du \i^n' 

ati momont oil telle donation cat faite et enregidtroeV ., /• 

3o. Que ?T^rr*jdevoir dii cruancier contestant Toppogition fait* par la femmo, d'al- 
\ , li'gueiet de prouverle prtjudico^liielui acauB6 le ditcontrftt 4e mMiagt^com- 

portani donation, attendu que telle c<pntestatiou fikt de la nAti^i^ d'une action^ 
.rcivocafoirn ; ' \ 

40. Que daiH reBpucc, malgr6 que le contrat de MajjWge a 6t6 enMgiitrS snbgo- 
\ q'lemment a\l9 cruance deS demandeurs, cepenilant ces deraierg seraient ^3 

1 , droit ii se plAlBrtir«"do"ce retard dans T'enregistrcment 8i 4 I'^poque 06 la 
dette a 6t6contractee Icur dubiteur otait solvable et Arait en Sa possesgion 
deg bion^ suffidants, i\ patHes bieiis 16gu6s au dit coRtrat de mariagfe, t>our 
payer £1-3 dettes. n 

Par le ju^fiiont (/ quo roppogitiop afin do distraire de Topposante k h vent« 
■deseffets mobilicrs saisis par lus deioandeura a 6t6 renvoj'^o. L'ppposante en 
demande tu rd vision.' , » « ' . , ' 

Par Ic contrat,do maria<;o oh date du 21 mars 1883, le dcfeodeur It donatien 
I ropposante son <?pouie, de tous lea ipaHbjeftdrTntSoage^qu^ poss^dalt tptunUfi- 
JSfiSt^ oeux (jiril ac<|uUrcrti1t par la suite jusqu'i concurrence de llsomme 
■dc I !500. Co contrat do ni;iriaiio n,'a ^td enregistriJ que le 23 aoGt*!^. 

Dana le cours de juin de la ruOuae an nee le d^fendejlir ^tait deveau en detle 
cayers les demaiidours,.ils intent^rent 'la pr^aente aotioR et obtinrent jugemeiit 
'>contrc le d<5fendeur.^ 'Ik - • ^_ 

^ iics moy%iis de Topposantc a(^^•l!sument comnw Suit : " . _ ' » 
Que vu qiijil a eu tradition et possossioti publlqua des bien3 do^u^par son 
contrat de «iaruigoTl>p'^tait pas ndccssaire' de le faire enregistrer. . \ 
' Que dans tous Ins cas'ile contrat de masiage qui est la base de Kdpposicion a 
. .i^olietacnt'et^ cjy;o^istrd et l\a(5td en temps utiltf.'., 
i^?i|% I»'appelant,(lnn.s .ion factum dit»: ' 1 '" • • '■; 

*'^"''/t/^-^if^F'^M *^*"i'f'"'^ Ff contrat do mariage n'a d'effet et n'est valide vis-i-vis ^ 
■ f^'i^^^'^-'"^;"''^ *"*''*''■'* aieine postdriottrs que par I'enregiptretnent etque cet edregis- ~^ 
. ^^^m<^t pent se faijrc en tout teo^s, tact que lea tiers n'oij.t pas, de droitfl aOi.»w, 

.'^.: ••■.>■„'';■'. .■.-■/" ^::^- -■ :.''•'"""''.' ■■'■'. ' ^" 



;5_^ 



M*^> 



.;)>:^ 






H.* -.» 



;1" 



,." ,, ; .•■)■■■■,. ■■ Vs. I 



-egis- 




IF? 


» 


/ r ■ 


■; 




N 


^ ■■ - 


, - 




0' 




I 












.V: t 

V 







179 



•>«*■ 



'm. 



la quostion da I'effioiwMdo l*«oroguitreai«!ii.^il i«ontrnt (}« moriage do 1'om». 
Banto M),^^t en w^mJJ: " : 

A la dHu dtt,enregwtr«a»ont,«TOif, HdgS oofit 1883, le dtSfendoor pouvuil- 

^il foiro line donation doa l»i«OT d()nn<5« par To oontrut dtt maringo invoqu<jr 8 tl 

pouvaitiooUoViatefairc uno telb donatioiKiWiiKistreuiont d»! ladooation du Uri 

mars 1883 a <St<$ fait on .temp* utiiu ; done vaii^SoMint. Si lo 23 uoQt 1883 il ..« 

■pouTMt plus faiwtjot acto de doiwtiop, ronreKintrooiont eat tardif ; dons i! 

ne vaut pus. Or rien- ne ddmontre ioi que le 23 aoftt 1883« lo dtToinlcw oo I>»m» 'i: 

,vait pas oonaentir la donation invoqud6. ' , : ,, . ' 

Quolquo aoit le point do v^p quti Ton adopte do sAVoir ai la (ionatipB par coili ; ii 
trat do mariago cstuu contrati titro gratuit mii titro oniroux, o'iitait WujoiDrrf J, 
aux contostanU 4 ^taWlr'queoetto donation no pouvait fitre faitc i cctte iSpoquo 
par le ddfcndeur. Car la fraud© no sto pr^suojo pa8. 

En d'autres tenues, ilfttilait aiikjsontestante dcSmontrer queled^fbndeurfltMt 
ik o«itte 6poq»e Insolvable ot en d^bonfiture suivant, I'urtiel* 803 eonbfiid aveoiol .• 
arts. 1034 et 1038 C. C. En oe senB voir Trouoy ot Liggett, 28, L. C. X, p. iVt. '--^ 
et lo8 autoritc's cite^s, 9; G. S; 11, p. 441. (Rapports de la Cour Su!^rOnie.) '" 

Or oomme nous I'avonsyit non-seulemcnt il u'y.a rion dni^'Ja preu^qui" 
fasse voir quo le d^fendeuryonateur fut & oette <5poquo itiaolj>abTe ou qlie par - 
cette donation il so soil rcn(|u insolvable. Mais il «yapu8 niame 'd'all«Sgu<5 i- 
cet effet. 1 ' . 

^n sorte que la juour so tnouVe en face de cette proposition prise par los con- 
testanttf' otquela cour de jjrcniiifere instarioe a 'approuv<Se, quo paro6 qu'ellc* 
^t^ enregistrde fWHt^riouroui^nt i la cr«5unce de8„ deninn4ej»** contestants quoi- 
qu'elle ait ete faito ant^riearement la donation invoqude est nuUo IiW/mtoctj* " ' 
sans distingjiefr siH la date ^e rpregiHtrenKsnt de cette donation les tiers, (lea 
demandeurs,), a valient cu n'uijWjtpasdedfoits acquis sUr les bidn8jfonn4s^8i^ft_!__ 
cette/'poquiS lo donuteur poijjrmt.^ no pouyait pas.^ire'cette doluition, si cette 
.dooatioD leur a pdrit« pwSjudijte oil ne lour oi a pas port«S, si ellc est frauduleuse 
lou DO Vest pas, . - !" / , ';. ,' 

V Nous oroyons qu'il y a errfur dans le j'ugcnient a quo, parceque. 

1. La l6i ne fixe apun ddjai daua lequel I anregiatripeat d'une donation doit 
^trefti^. . "'■ ..J, ": ;. 

2. Parce qu'i la date de I'cijregiatrQnjent de la donation les contcstant«'n'avaient 
aucun droit acqui[<. . • . 

3. Parce qu'il^ la date (k oet enregistrenient le donateur out pu validement 
faire une telle donution, v(k qli'uu luoins le cc ntraire n'est pas tilldgud ni prouvd. ' 

Voici'le jugement de la Couc^,. , ' ^ - . . 

La Cour apr^i avoir entendr'fts parties ,j?ur I'insclripion en R(5vi8ion du * 
jugeiuent rendu en cette cause le 26e jour do juiu 1885, exaniiu<S les pieces et ' 
la proo^dure, et ddlibdrd. - ." ^ w 

Attendu que ropposuntc,i&pou6ede I'ui/des d<5rendetirf>, Charles Langlois, sW- , ; 
jjose a la veote des .biojp ujieubles et effuts saisif e^octtctjause et rdclami^^^ 
cot^e sa propjri^td ^^n/K/Mt^ contrat de ijjiiri3|e intervenu outre la dite oppo- 
ianteet son di't dpoii^lj^Kirs 1883. "' 



•ti 



cr. ungMm, 

■ . «i : ■•' . 
DauM'Ol- ' 

-Uti^taMi ' 







.*» 



^.i-: 



"J^^.. 






^.^. 



¥ 




T~ 



c 



•V. Laofoi^ 




,1^ 



COUft tE JtKVISION, 1880. 



^r^,' 






4 



- -^'; 



ti4nin quo Joii Jouiaiideurs oitt potyttU. cutto oppotition prtfto»dant que 1* 

.tl\^ oontr'at do ianria);(n t^uft aatts ()ff>)tj|||||pP<(giird, atlendti qu'il n'a <St^ enre- 

Ktro que pOiMdridiiroiuont 4--ro(iiitunoo do luur ercSanoo et)iue I'opiKlilote d'a 

an eii U potteiuion publiquo dim bions mfJiibl^s tt offotx «aiaiA; 

Contid^ant qu'it est od prouvo quo'le oontrat da oiadaKe un qoaltiop a 6pi 

JLIforfp, cnregiitrd, OS qu'on ooln l'oppo»tunto A'eitf conform^o & la lot ; 

CoDslddrant que la ooattiiitntinn ua coUo ouuso ost do lu naturo d'uoo action 
rdvooatoireet quo leS dcmapdcurci no peuvont obtenir lea oonotusions de lour oott- 
testatioa qu'on dSrnontran't le prt^judioo qu'a pu lour causer lo oontrat dout iU 
demandont {a nuilitd ; • 

Consid^Srant quo inalgri6 quo lo eootrat do iuariBp;e eh quoiition a 6i6 enrogistru 

Hubsdquoinuient i^la or<$ inod dea domandeura, oopondaut ees derniers Boraiunt 

' sans droit ti so plaindre do oe' retard dam t'enrogintroiDont si, ii I'opoquo oil h 

dotte a 6{.6 contructde Icur ddbitour 6tnit Holvuble ot avait Ha pos^esaion dus biouH 

-^-\ -suffi'sants & part Icn biouM meublea ct offets ii\pnUonoda au 90utrat do niariage- 

pour payer 808 dottO|( .' . * .^ ' •* 

ConsiJdrant qu'il est ori prcuvo V|u'& iMpoque da oontrat de xdariage en m^ 
lesion lea doniandours n'^taiont'^ pHs or^rtnoiers de I'^poux de TopposantO ; 



quest'ion 




/ 

.1 



•quo do plus los douf^mdours n'oot |l||nt prouvd qu'ii oette niOino dpoquo non plun 
qu'ilL ootlo oil ila sout dovenus or^nnoiors lO dit <$pouz do I'oppodaate <$tuit inaol- 
vable et no poeii^dait auoun autre biea quo oeuz fiientionn^a au oontrat de 
jnariage ;, ' ' <, 

Oonaid^rant que I'opposanto a un titre apparent k la propria dos biens 
aaisis et que rion no fait voir au dossier que oe titro, non plus quo son onregis- 
trement ait 6t6 fuit en fraudo dos droits dos demundours, ni niOme ik leur preju- 
dice, qu'il a'est pas prouv($ que !• ddfondour Langlois ^tait insolTablo k (tjMune 
dos ^poques mentionn^oB dans la contestation; '^.- * / 

Coosid^^rant en oons^quenoo qu'il n'y & j>a8 lien & adjuger ooofortndmeDt^iaux 
<30Dclusion8 prises par les demandeurs et qu'il y k erreur dans le jugotaiont.ddnt 
la r^vison est demanddo : " ' - ^ 

IH Casse et annule le dit jugemont et proo^dant ik i^ondre oelui que la Cour do 
premiere instance aurait dii rondre. *^ 

Maintien^'i'opposition de la dite oppoaante et renvoie la contestation de la 
dite opposition aveo d^pons tant de cette Cour que do lik Cour inf(£rieure. ' ; 

/ Jugemont ronversd. ' 

/Soy (& ^ou<At7/iVr, avooats dos demandeurs. 

J^ri/ontaine & La/ontaine, ^voctxia do I'opposante. 

\ ■• . ■ - ,■ .' ■ . 



1^ 



,H : Ml 



■ 'Tcr,-- - )| 



$: 



i.* ' 






1 I 



IF . %"■ •■. COUB I5« HIiVlMQN..,,, 

.■^W -H^ 1^ >,v,.,:v ' n - • II ;^ , I' .,'1'' 



^^tf 





■'IfifilM, 



..„( 



|}tft>Dte«. 




Jcoi:-Quela cnittion eat valiibn 

mti hoM irfitut de lut p^,„.. ., ^. ..,^.>. v. „,„«„„. 

Que l'ezUnciion'4* la dcttS princitiaU ^r la nmlw Tol^Utl* cttt'aii Mili< ' 
,- JL criAnclar nd-d^tbilauc'Drlneiiuil UbiiklAeiiutiun.* ^ -_ . jJ 



rgvi» (oni{ni« (tar ion rail le «Tian«{f fr t'ftti 



criMcier ad dibilsur principal UbiM la filiation.' 



# 



Que I'imputnttoD de palcment '«e i'nl^ tur la dctti* la plusaueltnoe ctnle pr£fSrcn» 
. . cp sur cette partle de' iu dutte qui est cAUtiunui<o. ' 

Yofci oonimont »o lit lo jugQtncnt, de In oqitr |^« preini^w im^tit^iMKi (Fuuneifll, 
J.) Lcsfaits do-la SniiHO 7 soDt ol(|ircnL6nt"exp<iK^!>. . ff; i 

Coniid(<rant quo lo dctnandcur rt'claiuc «>n vcrtiu'd'un bail aathcntlquo mtp- 
tioond daus bu duularatioti uno balance du Idyeirque J. A. <nouletto H'dtuit oblig<i 
do lui payer pour lo tungasin tvi^Didro 5p3,de' la ruo St. Joseph diiOB le t^j^uactier 
St. Antoioo do-cetfo vilto, dopu^s le^3,I do d<?ccn^fc^fc 1877, jusqu'au prtniier do 
mai mil huit ccht qaatfe-vingt-tm ; 

Con»id6nint quo Jeu Hdiuond r^raTeli/i'dtait obHg<$ oomtne cnittton oolidairc, 
conyiio sou) r<ipondant et priijpipal o1}lig45^ au paieiuent du dtt loycf par le dit 
bail nuqucl ii^taiit partio intfrvehantc;! ;][. 

Considdranf„quo' lo dit J. A. Obulo^te I' fait feilUtc sons I'opdratJon de la lol 
do 1875, ot do lies ameridemonts, quo L()ui.s Joseph Lijoic n 6t6 nonini<$ syndic 
h la faillitc du dil J. A. Goulotte__et a eif-ces'sioii et possession dcs biens de cetto ; 
failMtc'y oompria cenx contciffrrdaQS Ic dit infl{j«>iin lou«5 ; r- 

' Consi^drant quo par dorit sous seing prfvd on dato du vingl-quatro de 
soptenibfe mil huit cent 'soixantoet dix-ncuf, adressd aa dit Syndic us-qunlitd, 
le dema'ndcur a d^clard qu'il accoptait coiTime locatairo pour ravctiir le dit J. 
A. Gouletto, psnr collccter do ce dernier le loycr alora dO ; et qu'il voulalt, en 
d'autres ternics, a'arranger oompl^teiucnt avco Ic dit J. A. Goulerte, pour le 
loyer*d« son wagasin et logcipeirt-'pH^Sld e^^a venir, ot -qu'il ddchurgcait le dit • 
syndjd'do toute obligation pu responsnbili.td eii cette affaire ; • 
' ConSKwrAht quo lo dit'demandour avnit,^en«vcrtu de son clit bail autbentique 
et do la loi, up privilogo-sur lea biens do la fuillite garniasant le dit magaain 
poilr SOB loyef 4«rant toutd la durdo du dit bail, et qu^en .ddohargciiiDt le syndic 
ode toute respopsabilitd> ou obligation oomme il I'u fait, il a perdu Tavantagc d'S.tre 
payd par privildg(f^r Iga biena dii failli garfligsnnt son mngasin, et qu'il »■ 
arnsi rendu la'iTOoditiott'de la cautioni, .pltis ondreuscj et qu'il a prhr6 ccUe-oi de 
I'aVantage qu'ello avaifdc vfip lolbyer payd en entier siir le produit de la vente 
du gage .<nui a'y trpuvait affectd 'et que le detaandcur a ainsi perdu lo droit de- 



K ■) 



m 



## 



■tj^ 





ifi' 


-i- 




/.. 


<i 


^ -- 








.4 



.*. ■*"■ 







G- 



t^s 




-■''•'■: ". : ' > 


* ■ . ■ * ' 


■"."■■■■■.'■ '.■,.:>■:■"■ 

K « ■ ■" ,■ 
■. ■. ■ i -- ■■■■>. 




•• * 

! 
> " * ■ 

1. , 






• 
* 


^. 


;■■-". ■.■'-*. -" 




— ^-J 7 — — : — 

* 


"'■ ,'" '■' '■%; ■ ",■■ ■ r "■■■■■ . "■■;^ "~-7^ 


t 


. • ' •' - 


" \ .' _-. " .-.'.•", '■ " , ■ 


( 


■ -■ ■■ ^'""^ "■■ ■. ■■ ■■'■;" 


"'■':,:■/ ■;:':; ' ■■■■■' '■'■' :>,'|:M^° ^''" '^ 



:?!*! 




>",;i'- 




\''. ' 










V.J,: . . 


1 


• 


/ 






*¥ 






"■ '' 


¥ 










it .■ • ■ 










!>■.;,, ; 






"■ 






#" 


« 




/ 



;^^. 






^«' 




/»- 



IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (iWfr.3) 



4 




A 




{./ 



^J^A 







y. 



I/. 



/£ 



& 



\ 






z 






■7 

■'V 



1.0 ^laisi 

»- 1^ III 2.2 






1.1 , i:'^m 



\mmm 



6" 



,...,,.. 



J 



•f ^^ 






•v 




t-f>^^ 



»'=%^-.'^r 



.;t 



^^ 



m 






Pliolugicipliic 

Sciences 
CorporatiDn 



<^ 




--%,■ 



23 WEST MAIN STREiT 

WEBSTER, N.Y. MSfO 

(716) 872-4503 









t^ 



:-/ :•.. ' 







-&■ 



27rt 



± 



COUB DE R$; vision; 1886 



« ' 'ir "! r ■"."'' 7''" ""'' P""' ''"''' " '»'<"•»«•"»«»» rononc6 i soa droit sur le gago 

. ponse au plaidoyer du d^fendeur 1„ fraudo qu'il prdtcnd avoic m pratiqude a 
«on prdjudioo par le dit feu Edmond Gravel • 

W: que feu Edmond Gravel dtiit son crdaacier de la 'Bomme de $1452.53 et 
. que cette contrad,.t^„ affecte considdrablepent sa credibility si elie no la ddtruit 
pas compl^temcntf^r^s fins dft prdsent litige. 

. Considdraqt qucles rdponsos du domandeur aux defenses du ddfendeur et sob 

. rdponscs aux fa.ts et artieles et ses r^ponses aux questions suppldmentaires 

. ._ n autorisent pas la cour A imputersur a«tret,hose que sur lo loyer du magasin 

. . enqucst,o„.leB d.verses somnies qui lui out dtd payde, par J. >. Goulet^, et 

que los regus produ.ts et prouvds no font d'imputyion spdoiffo que sur le 

iTI t^r"^"""-."x ''''° '"' """"""'' '■"•' •'»P"'»«''^ "P^"'"!" dans les regus, , 
doivent etre cons.ddrdes comme donndes en a cOmpte sur le loyer du magasin * 
y • qu. est la seulc dette alldguee par le deinandcur dans sa demand^ et actibi, et 

quo ces Bommcs doivent etre imputdes, d'abord sur loloyer lo plus anoiennement 
bl\879 ''*''"'' ^'^'""P"^^^^ 

. Considdrant qu'il est prouvd que \t ddfendeur t^8.qualitd „e devait plus rieo . 
' ' ' Ibndr" ""■"' ^"^ '''°«t'*'^ti«" de ^ Poursuite, et quo celle^ei est mal 

. Kenvoio Taction du demandeur avec ddponB distraits i Messieurs Curran et 
Grenier, avocats du ddfendeur. ^ 

La Cour de Edvision a confirmd CO jugcment. ' •' 

" Autoritds du ddfendeur. ° ' . 

P«''>fe''.Nos. 404; 85,^; 583, 441,406,377.567 

II^qTq".'^ ^"J^to' iL?'t'r?*'' ^"' ^2§' 282. 253. 302, 306 ; C. C. arts. 
.1169, 1953, 1179, 1185; Dolloz, 1852, pri03. 

T ji . n ■ Jugcment confirmd. 

^«*'«"c«<-»«>mc»<,avooat8du demandeur appelant. , 

Curran et Grenicr, avpeats du ddfendeur intime. ' • 



0^ s ^ 



,jf^ ■ 



^ . ) 



* ■ - * 






■\- ■ 



COUR DE REVISION, 1886. 



27T 



• C'OUR DE lifiVISlON, 1886. 

MONTREAL, 30 JUlN48/fe. 
Prescnt^i ikes lion, jugcs Torrancb, Papineau ft ^f.trt. 

" " bVlDE MAISONXEUVE, 



DKMANDEUR-lNTIKfc; 



VS. 



: • ' EVANGELISTE CA.MPEAU, ' 

DgPE.NDEDR-ApPELANT. 

Jo64 :-l. Que I'engagement de payer une certaine somme d'argent ai.ssitot que le orinncier 
aura valablement dccharge im immeubie d'une hypotbiSque qui le greviiit 
en favey d'un tiers, impose au dit creancler le devoir de faire radi«~^ 
'""".'P"*"" bvpothicaire au bureau d'enregisfrement, arant de poursuivre 

le paiemenMe la dite somme, lor, mems^qu-il apparaitrait que cettt 
hypothiqua serait valablement iteinte par la prescriptijon ou autrement ; 

2. Que la dite inscription hypoth6cnire constttue un trou^le-de droit qui pe'rmet 

au d.bheur, acquereur du dit immeqble, de repousser taction du vendeur 
quoiquilapparaisse prima jacie que la dite obligation est d-teinte par la 
prescription trentenaire j F»r m 

3. Que la prescription trentenaire, invoquee sous les circonstances, ne pouvait 

6tr^ dehnuivement d6cidee que contradictoirement avec le criancier de 
.^ 1 obligation, dftment mis en cause,; et qu'une personne aynntintcrtt ik 

invoquer la prescription d'une dette due par un tiers ne pent valablement le 
faire si cette question n'est pas dcbflttue contradictoirement entre le crean 
cier et le debiteur. " t-n-au 

Voici comment B'exprimelejugement dela cour de premiine instance / 
Attendu (JUG le demandeur rdclume du ddfendedr la .somnie de cent^astrc« 
moDtant d'un billet promissoire fait i Sainte Marthe, le huit avril mil huit cent 
'quatre-vingt-deux, Mgnd par le d<<fendeur, par Jequel CQ^jlcrnier aurait promi, 
Fjer kprem^^rnovembre aWprochain miljiit c'^t quatre-vijigt-Seux pour 
valeur re^ue, 4 I'ordre du demandeur, au.^^p'de Sajnte M.rtlL la dite 
somme de cent piastres "si alors Tobligat^ •l.nsehtio en fi.vetlr de-'0wen 
McQabe sur le lot No. 13 sud Ste. Marie, dite paroisse de Sainte M^rthe »?tait 
valablement ddchargde,sinonaussit6tqu'ellele serait " le demandeur alle'-'-uant 
que la dite obligation a dt,S valablement d«?charg4 au'desir du dit (?erit ° 

Attenduque par ses defenses le- defcndeur all^gue-que la dite obligation 
•consentjcen faveur d'Owen McCabe I'aurait ef^ par acte passe le vin..t"deux 
octobre mil huit cent cinquante-trois, deva^t Mtrc. Olier, botaire, par" lenuel 
acte Charles Maisonneuve, Tauteur du dei^andeur, aurait constitu,?^ en favour 
du dit McCabe,.une rente annueile ^perpdtuelle detrois louis, douze chelins 
au capital de soixanta louis ancien /ours, pour le paiement de laquele rente et 
dq^oapital d'lcelle le dit immeuWe sus-ddsignd aurait etd spdcialcmcnt jjffeeto et 
hypotWqu^; que t'obligation et I'hypothoque susdites n'auraicnt jamais m 
eteintes ou d^chargdcs, et subsisteraicnt ejicore, que le billet ou ecritqui fait 
la base de Taction n'aurait ^td consenti paf le d.3fendeur qu'en r^glement de 1^ 
balance, du prix de vente stipule en I'acte de vente^ de la mfimc p'opri^t^ 





t 




ViJ^ 



COUR DE Hi 

4. / 



VISION, 1886. 



Q, llniMHl- 

neuru 
Jl« Gampenu. 



■•^ 



/ ■ 



\ 



<!nn!<ontie pof io doinuDdcur au d^fondour le treize tnani mil huit ^ent quatrc- 
vititrt-iIou| (Lefebvrc, notuirc) avio garantie de droit, et quo lo\ d^fond«!ur 
craiimaiit, coiuuie il ie oruint cncoire, d'etre troqbl<S ik rniHon do la ditc hjpdthti- 
quo en 'fuveur du dit McCabc, Aurait cxigd que le dit billet no fut ooDSeuti 
(lu'i la condition prtfoiJde; conchiant lo dit ddfondcur iH co qu'il soit d6olaf<5 
-qu'il a Io droit do difft'rer le pai^inent dn dit billot jnaqu'a co quo Io ddfondeuf ' 
ait fait cesser Hi ornintc du dit (roublo ou rourni un caationnomeut^uffiaant, et 
au d<5bontd do Taction ; \ 

Attcndu que Io doniandc-ur a rdpondu 'auz dites ddfonses que lors do la 
conf&ction du billot ou dcri't qiii fait la biso de Taction Tobligation'rdsultant de 
Tacto du viugt-deux octobro mil huit cinquanto-trois n'dtait pas eneord proBorite, 
mais ({u'elie Ic serait dcvenue derpuis Io laps de trento onndos dcouldes dopuis 
la date du dit aoto, «t dtait virtuellcmont dtoiqto et ddohargdo par la prescription 
trcntcnairo lorsquQ Taction a (St(^ portdn ; 

l^ttcnda que l^r dt^^citdeur a rdpliqud Rp^ofalement que la dito proaoription no 
saurait etre' invOquuc qu*iL Tenoontro du or^ancicr et non k Tencontre do Tao- ^ 
qu([5reur oraignant d'Otre*troubi(S, et de plus qu'elle aurait dt<5 interrompue par le 
paiem^nt fait jusqu'ii, Tannde mil huit cent cinquante-huit do la rente annuelle et 
perpdtuello OT66e par Ic dit acle du vingtdctix ootobre mil huit oent oinquante- 
trois ; A \ ' • 

ConsidC'ranl qu'en fait le diSfendour n'a pas dtabli on preu've Tinterruption do 
presci-iptioa qu'il invoque^ ct que les paiements dtablis avoir 6t6 faits par 
I'autour du demSudeuFont 6t6 opdrds entre Ics^maina du seigneur propriejairo 
de la sei<rnourie dans la censive ct jiaouvanco de laquclle Timmeuble en question 
etaifc t*itu<5, ti obmpLe d'unc rente sci^eurialo payable au dit sdigneur lui-m6me 
. ct qui a dt<5 /lle-mume dopuis dtabli(! jdHhtamude par Teffct de la loi'abolissant 
et commuant Ics droits' seigneuriai>» J|H|^ province, et n'ont et6 nullomont 
faits au dit McCube ni i compte de Ift^Te^e sp<Soi»le stipulde en sa favour ; 

idrant qut la prescription .tfonfenaire della dite rente payable a Owen 
McCab^ a «5td duement acquise ^avant Tinstitutjion de Taction, et que par 
cons<$qucnt la conditioo sous laquelle la souimo de cent piastres dtait faite 
payable par Tdcrit sus-iti^tionne a^etd acoomplie; ' 

Considdrant qu'en droit le demandeur pour rdussir dans sa demande n'avait > 
qu'il ddmontrcr la fait de Textinction et ddcharge complete do Tobligatioii4t de 
rhypotheque du/nocdm^ McCabe, sdns avoir baSoin de mcttre ce d^mer en"* 
oaiiieliirdeTfipm radier par jugenicDt une hypoth^que que la loi-meme declare 
dtointc; reicite les ddfenses ee condamne le ddfendeur d payer au demandeur la 
dite somnio de cent piastres avco intdr(^t ik compter du deux juillet mil liuit cent 
quatrc-vingt^uitre, jour d«/T assignation, et les ddpens. . - 

La Cdar de £tcvi8ion.a renversd ce jugement, et voioi la partiedes conaid^rants 
qui donnent lea motifs de/«ette ddoision." 

" Considdrai it qu'il jk crreur dans le jugement dn diz d'jvril mil huit cent 
qnatre-vingt-sii:, pronone^ par la oour en premidre instance'' qui a maintenu les 
pretentions du demanaeor contcnues tant dans Ja d^claratfon quo dftos ses 



">^ 



COURDe' REVISION, J886., 



27a 



„ '\,^''""^t""*,'>f ' ""' ^'"b"' P" 1« """-^ifi^ du rdgistratcur du dit comte, O. M«i.o»- 
, quo 1 .nsonption de la d.te obligation hjipotlj^o cxisto encore ; qu'elle n'est pa "?." 
itlTl P»"r'«!''r?' ddchargde.^t que' e'ost "une eauso de crainte de *=• CamW-. 

cette propndt^ sans 1„ fulre, <4:.rattre pour sati^faire ceux qui voudraient 
\la rSion"" '' "' ''"' "° "'"'^^''' ^ ' """' "" '^°"""'d<"" * «" fai«»'foiro 

i.Cf T!?.!""' "^"li' "'""' P"' »"■"""* 'i"'' •" *'°"^'*'°" <»» dit dorit sous seing 

Sr*^'''^^^''""*"' P""' ""•=""^™' ''^°''*'">°« de la presoriptiott 
aa.8Ypres«knenr|fi^Kvoir ddcharge do la dite obligation : [ ' 

ansiddrai^e {4us${ue la proscription trentenaire invoqude par io dem^- 
deur nW Ae ^ddfioitivcment ddoidde V« contraodietoiremeut avee Je 
crdancier)lorobligatlon,lequcln'cst pas on cause; ... j 

" La/6o^r sidgeant on rdWsion rcuverse lo dit jugemont et prooddant ii 
rendr^lfi juWent que la Cour Supdrieuro en premiere instance aurait da 
rendi-e, ddboutW demandeur de son action, quanta prdsent, avcc ddpens, tapt 
en premiere instij^cequ'en revision." ' 1 

/ Autorll^s citjJes ><^i;'l'appelant pour ddmontrer que-1'acheteur craignant d'etre 
troubld a le droit de refuser le paiement jusqu'A ce que le vendeur ait ftfij pro- 
nonoer la nullitd des insoriptions hypotljdcaires oont^adictoiremcnt aveo les 
t,^ aires de ces inscriptions; que la question de validity des hypothdques n0 
pcut fitro^dcdde qu'avcc les crdanciers inscrits; q^'il -uffit qu'cllos existedt 
pour qu iffy ait pour I'acquereur peril d'dviotion \ 

^Dalloz, verbo vcnte Nos. 1177, 1181, 1185, 1188, arret dnV la note 1 sec 

Dalloz,^erbo. vente No. 1180. 

Duvergier, de la yente t. 1., Nds. 424, 425. 

Code Civil B. C., art. 2150. 

Diet, du Notarial, werfto vente, Nos. 249, 263. - ''-■ r: \ f 

Troplong, velSte No. 610i. 

Bnranton.vol. 16,No. 352. < 

Teulet-Da^viiliers, art. 1653,No8. 75,'76. 
,, Laurent, vol. ^y No. 321. 

Sirey C. N., ai*. 1653, Nos. 2, 5, 7, 38, demidre 6ditioh: 
;' " " Sd. del865, No.4.^ V r- • 

Jugement renversl 
GeoffTrion, Dorion, f^afteur et Rin/ret, avocats du demandeur. 
.Privost, Bastim et.Prioost, avocats du d^fendeur. 


















>y 






/ 






► 


■iilvl 






■ill 








' Mr 






■ i 


uH 


«. 


i. 


■'.-'■ 


\i^W 


* 1. 










/- 


i 


if 



t 




■ 7 ■ .- 
■ - . /- ' ■ 


■'-■ ■■-"-- 


4 ' 

■■■X 'A,-^ 


-. ■ ' ■ , 


:■'.■■""/ 


\ 










' ' ■' f 




■ 










■ /» 






..;■« 


. 


, 




\ ' 


fr ' .- - "• 


- ■ ^..- : ■.: ■• 










-: , .;.. . - ' 




■ \ 1 


i- 






^ 


' ' ' , ■ ' 






* 


■ . ' ' ■ ' ■ ■ *> 



,f ?*? 



280 



COUK DU BANC DE LA REINE, i88G. 



yOUIl 1)U BANC J)E LA REINE, 1886. 

(EN APPEL.) " ' 

MONTREAL, 21 JUIN 1880. \^ 

' \ Db. CATIIERINB alios KATE O'KEEP^ M^m., 

* " JJtmandereut e» Cour Infirieuf^,^ 



Appblamti 



KT 



^ ' JOSEPH DESJARDINH, ■ \ 

' '■■/ ' 

<1 Difendifur «n Conr Infirieure, 

iNTIUft. 

ivak -.—Quo (iana I'capi'co il otait permit tkl^ppcUate de suppleer an contrat qnant \ la 
vnleiir par ia preuvo dti qmnluin, mii^ que la preiive teatimoniula do toute con- 
venfion quant aii lieu oil I'ouvrage devail Ctre fourni 6taitilK'gale ; qu'en I'abai nee 
de ronvention iwt ae point le fait devait Otre dutermioG par I'usage (article I23i, 
CO.) ' 

La di'riiandcrcsso allocuc dans sa diSoIaration, x|uo le 26 mat 1883, nn dcrit 
fut pasfjJ en tre K's parties (n cette cause, par loquel le d<Sfcndcur 8'engagea*d6 
lui fournir do rouvrnge en tricot, pendant peuf moifi, ik compter du quatrc juiu 
alors procliaiD, a Tiii?on de $4.50 par scmaine ; quo lo defoDdcnr s'engagea de 
pluf», fournir une niachine n triooter de la valeur (k^rcnte-'fiept piastrds, pajabte ^ 
deux piastres par seniaine ; que la dj-fcndeicsse 'a Convent rcquis lo ddloudour v 
do lui fournir de Touvragc, ce qu'il a toujours refu-C' do fjjire, et olle rt-clame ■ 
$180.00, comma f^uit : 

Salairo du4 juin :iu 27 anftt 1883 :.. /. ,. 54.00 

Dommagcfi ik souffrir du 27 aoftt, jusqu'i la fin de son cngagi^ment... 12o.00 



L'a 






$18p.00 



I'action a etC* intcnt^e le trois septembre 1883. 
L'<'crit mr lequei est basee I' action, se lit comme suit : 

* Montreal, May 26th, lfe'83. 

I, Joseph Pcsiardins, pigjmi.se to furnish Mi.ss Kate O'^eefe witfa work, 
knittins;, for space of nine l^onth^s, to begin on the fourth day of ^ne next, 
Monday. 

I will also furnisfi her with one knitting machino valued at $37.00, payable 
$2.00 per week, until paid. / 

Signed this day, the 26th May, 1883. 

•dK, . JOSEPH DESJvAEDINS. 

Le dufendcur a plaidd que la demanderes.se n'avait jamais donn4 suitd'd son 
engagement, qu'elks n'a vait jamais requis le d^fendeur de lui fournir de I'ouvrage, 
81 ce n'e.st au commencement d'aoftt, et il est en prcuve par la demanderessc, 
que le defendeur lui en a alors ofiFert, mais qu'elle a ensuite refuse ti cause du 
prix qu'elle Voulait faire augmenter i. $6.00, au lieu de $4.50 par pemaino. 

Le 15 decembre 1883, 1'hoDorable juge Rninvillc rendit le jugement suivnnt : 

La Oour, apres avoir entendu les parties par leurs avocats sur le merite de 
cette cause; avoir cxamind.la prociSdure, log pieces 'produites ct lajreuvect 
d^libdre T 



V\ 



t-T, 



m 



' >'^J'-:.'- .,.-■«■ 



s:)iJs:i^L. 



COUR DU B^NC i)B LA HEINE, 188G. 



28t 



Attondu quo la domundcrosse lr<<clftmo du ddfendour la BOinmo do «180.00, ot De. CaU,erine 
qu ello nlljguo quo pnr c«orit Us .%i„g privd datd H Montm lo 26 niai ll?83 "X^,?* 
•Ignd par le ddfondeur, oq dor<iior so scrait obligtS do fournir do rouvraRc do «t v7r" 
tricot a la dito domanderoH/e pour Toapioo do ncuf u>ok A oomptor du 4 juin J.' Dcyardio. 
alors proohata ; cm'il fut/,r.. convom. quo lo ddfcndcur paio^ait a la dcman- ' 
dorcMse un salairo do 8^:50 par .en.aino ; quo le dit defcndour a rcfusd do 
lui ourn.r do Touvrago, et 08t bion fon Jdo ,\ .^clamor du d^Sfondeur 858,50 pour ' 

/. . C6n8iddrant que Ic d«5fendeur plaido quo la dcraandoressc n'a jamais effort ms 
8erv,cos, excepts lo 2 aoAt, ot que d'aiilours olio a tiavailid et gagne plus qu'olle 
nanrait sa^ si ello avait^t^!^vailid pour lo doPendcur. 

, Considdrant qu'il est prouvd quo lo iJofeodour dcvait fournir de I'ouvra^o do 
trieet H la dit» domarideresso, svivnnt- scs alltWation.-, qu'il devait lui porter 
I ouvrage chc2 .^llb, co qu'il n'a pas fait etqu'A raison do cos fait., la domand'erosso 
a droit 4 SOD salaijo jusqu'A la date do Tinstitution de cette action, mais il ost 
prouy<5 qu ello a it4 engagee pendant un- certain (iemps, durant cotto intorvaUe 
et que dopms ello est^gagdo, mais i\ un salaire moiudre. ' \ 

• La Cour, fixant les doniraages pour lo ddfaut d'exdcution du dit contra^ ' 
depuis le premier do septembre dernier a la som.no do 830.00, sur laquclloli 
-^^V^Bt do ddduiro 810.00, pour gages g^udos par ladcmandcre.sso. avant le 
premidf 4e septon.bre,,lais9ant une balance de 820.00, qui r(5unie 4 la ditc • 

sommede 858.50, pour salaire dchu, fprmefun montant total do 878.50, condamno 

le ddfendeur i\ payer * i» demanderesstfrte" dito sonime (le $78.50 cours actuel ' ' 

ayec mtdrgt du 4 septembre 1383,, jour*Je Tassignation ot les ddpcns eommc 

d une action do cette clause, ylistraits A mossicure Currau et Grcnier, avocat^ do ' 

la demaddcresse. 's " 

Ce jugement fut renfersi par la Cour de Revision le 20 fevrier dernier- 
(Johnson, Jette et Lori^ger, J.J.) .. 

Vbici les considdrant^ de cette dt^cision : ' / 

Considdrant qug I'erfrit sur lequel repDsc la prt'sente action, no d<?si.'nc p-.s le 
lieu oil I'ouvragc devait i?tro fourni 4 la demnndero.s.se, ni la valeur do cot 



ouvrage. 



Considdran qu il dta.t permis 4 la demnnderesse, de .upplder au contrat 
quant H la valeur, par la preuve du q,mnt,m, mais que la preuve tcstimonialo 
de toutc convention quant au lieu ou I'ouvrage devait otre fourni, t'tait ille-ale- 
qu'en I'abscnce de convention sur ce point, lo fait devait Ctre ddt^rminlDai 
lusage, ' ^ 

Considdrant qu'il est en preuve qu'en semblable matit^re, I'usage ducommerco 
est que 1 ouvrage doit etreYourni a I'dtablissemcnt du manufacturier. 
- Considdrant^ue la preuve de la demanderesse i I'cncontre de I'^ci-it produit 
on cette cause est illdgale, et que la motion du defendeur teudant 4, la faire reieter 
aurait dft etre maintcnue. '' 

Considdraht qu'il n'existe aucune preuve que la demanderesse se soit prdsentde 

November, VoLi 30— No. 11» 



m 






282 



COUR DU BANC Db\lA RBJNK, 1886. 



''»iiMK"iv*^«"^<5'«nJ«"^ »"« <5poquc« mon(ionn)Sfis dans ie djt dorit pour roccvoir 

O'Keiff /i>**^|>j!%^c io d<5fcndour devait lui fournirX 

' ^\' •»* Cori8id^^t»i4mo la d«iuandero88C n'a poH prduvd los al\6gu6» ossenticU do^ if 
i. Deijnrilin*. d(?olftrntiori. X^^^^,,^^ \ > 

^__JtonvcrRC, etc., oto. (L'hoaorablejugoJolinsdB^ dissident.) 



I4* dpinundcresse pouvait-ello proiivvr par td^ins, quo le ddfcndeur s'Atnit 
fngugd ji porter son ouvrago <jhcz la dcniandorosso t Non. 

Tarco quo oe^serait pcrmottro la prouvo tostiujfontiUtr'^e faiU» eudchortJiL 
conlrat derit, BJgnd par los parties. Douioloiubo, vol, 30, page 92, 93, 97. 

^ _, . ■ ■*' Jugeul^nt coufirnid. 

Liirrnu el (rrenier, nvooats do rappdantc. 

, Lonitigcr et Bcuuilin, uvocutH dc riiitimd. 



COURT OF QUEBNS BENCH, 1886. 
(ArViAr," SIDE.) 

i f No. 114. 

MONTREAL, SEPTEMBER 25th, 1886. 
PrcgcDt, DoRioN, C. J., Monk, TeSbikb, Ckobs and Baby, J.J. 



\ 



■c 



ALEXANDER McGIBBUN 

{Dt/tndan{in the Court below), 
*'^^ .■• Appillant ; 

jbSEPH BEDARD 
' •- {Plaintif in the Court below), 

RlBPONOIMT. 

' B was no employee of .M, a tanner, ahd, after bein$ for some time emplojed in the tannery, 
j)urciiased some property opposite the same and on a lower level. An open drain from the 
tannery passed through the property so purchased by B, which drain was subsequently, 
through the instrumentality of B himself, covered over by the corporation, after which an 
oflfcnsive smell was observed to arise from it. B instituted an action against M for damages 
to his property and busiqess caused by the smell froi^l|e said drain. 

Held, reversing the judgmeiit of the Court of RevfPJkbat B was aware of the nuisance 
cynplaiped of when be purchased the property, and that moreover be, by procuring the 
coverfhi: of the drain, bad aggravated it, and in cons^enoe he was not entiUed to damages. 

The plaintifiPallogcd by his oction issued in January, 1«83, that the defendant 
<i!irtieA on a tannery of oon.sidernblo size in the town of Laohute, at a distance of 
about two hundred feet from the rc.'^idenco of plaintiff, where the said plaintiff 
« also carried on a general business as shoemaker, variety store, photographer, &o. 

That for several years, and especially during the two years immediately preced- 
ing the action, the defendant, whose tannery was separated from the property of 
plaintiff by the public road oply, bad caused the refuse from the tanning opera- 
tions carried on by him to be turned iiltlLn drain whicjj passed near lis tannery, 
and which was covered the whole distanoO between the tannery of defendant and 
^ ' the^toreof the plainliff where the liquids, &o., from the tannery wire discharged 

about two or three feet from the said store of plaintiff, anjd about twenty-five or 
thirty feet from his residence. ' f , 

That the foul odors from the said drain polluted the atmoufbere, and caused 
■ damage to plaintiff to the amount of $200.00. 



munici] 


where 


Btrnotctj 


tion of 


dent hii 


The i 


the ca8( 


plaintiff 


^ . / In th( 


^i |:*l»eCoui 


' .bent be 


TheC 


:'V:-- ■ ■• --■.' 





•^OUUlioP QUEENS BENCU, 1886. 



283 

Tho nppotlant plontlod : " ' ""■ — 

■Mo., u, ,h. .e,;;::^ ^21: "■" " "" '"'"°'""' ■" '' •"'""• «'- p- 

— «.iW,iU, „ X?l, : ,,"°"' ''"<'T'«l»i'«l 11.0 a«.or<h. .tier or.«„t.iq 
»iJ ...to. i. bl; Z, ^Itf Id T.7' ""'■ T.'""''«»' >■' "-» J""! from 

Boover,o.hor than fron. living near a tarn^/ ''^' "'" *"^ "'""«' "''"^ 
« .he «„. ..dirthe .i?,™lTr r T " '°. ""P'"'" " "" '^'' """"T 

-» ..II .... .nnr.::r rr„r:!:c2r • -'^ '""'"- ^^ 

(7.) That appellant conducted his tannine bJfi* , „' « i a. j . . ' 
anner. snd •..f !f j»^.:..j .i... \ ."""""8 DOWf »n a oleilD and orderly 



.iraotedin J„l,, 1882, i„ ,;„„» of. bj^^t^^^Tj •">«.««. cod- 
d«t him«lf being 0.10 of the oommiltee " ' •PP««>tjd-the respoo- 

■nent being „ folW;!'- ^' ^■' "'■ •''"'■"ftl»'.»g.rdi»..,i.g, «,.j„^. 
The Co.» «. be^ .j.^.^ ,„ ;^,,_. ^;^^.^^ ^^ ^. ^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ 



A. MoOibboa 

nnd 

J. llaaard. 



«■■! 

:--^'^ 






■''^J 
V *« 




W' 



^^ 



284 



COURT OF QUKBN'S BENCH, 188ff. 



, ^ ,^^< -i 

Jk, MeOlbbon ooun«<)l upon the dcnmnii uf pliiintiff; for rcvivw uf tlio juilKment renilcre<l by 

J. taiKitl. ^^'^ Circuit Court in ami for tlio Comity ol* Ar^untcuil, in the dialriot oC Torro- 

bonne, on the eovcnteenth day uf Novemhor, onu tkoumnd oi^ht hundrod ond 

eighty-rour, having ouniined thu record uud proceedings had in this cuuho und 

deliberated ; 

ConHidering that there is error in tho Judgment a quo, to w}t : the raid judg- 
ment of the seventeenth day of November last, doth reverse and annul iliu samo, 
and rendering the judgment which the Court below ought to have rendered io 
the premifios ; 

Considering that tho plaintiff hath proved thd material^ allegations of his 
dcoloration, and that ho is entitled to damages bjisrea^ori of tho illegal manner 
in which defendant u^od, and continues (o usd and work bin tannery, and tho 
drainage and uppurtouunces thereto helon^ing us complained by plaintiff ; 

And considering more particularly that defendant hifth a;!gmvated pi aintifTs 

cause of Complaint, by making and using for their purpose of such draina^o a 

" covered, instead of an open and uncovered, drain or outlet for thu refuse of putrid 

and polluted li'iuids and waters flowing f(roui tho vats and oporotions of Haid 

tannery j 

Considering that such covering prevents tho csonpo and exhalation of the 
impurities and noxious gases of snid liquid!*, until the mime are exposed to tho 
open atmosphere in couccutrated form contiguous to tho door of plaintifTs dwell- 
ing a^d place of businest, at the mouth of Haid drain ; 

And Qonsidering that defendant hath fuiled-to establish tho nllegatloiis of his 

pleaj^ to this action, and that plaintiff hat|i by reason of the premises suffered 

. dama'ges to the amount of twenty dollurti, dismissing B.iid picas, doth adjudge 

and condemn tho suid defendant to pay to said plaintiff the said sum of twenty 

dollars, for his damages by him suffered by the fault of defendant, with intcKst 

firom this dny and costs of suit as brouijlit dUtniU$ to J. A. N. Mockay, 

Squire, attorney for plaintiff. ■-■.■' 

,-, From this judgment an appeal was tiikcn. ' • 

' The appellant complaining of the said judgment for llib Atftowing among 
other reasons : T — . ' 

^ (1.) Because, by tho evidence adduced, the respondent has wholly Aiilcd to 

^^ prove thjB allegations of his 'decltiration, or to miiko out any ease that would 

justify the said judgment in review. 

(2.) Because it does not appear from the evidencd, that tte respondent ever 
suffered any damage to his business or health or in any manner whatsoever, or 
that there was any real cause of action. 
* (3.) Because the allegations of appellant's pleas arc well founded, and fully 
established by the proof adduced. i ' ^ , 

(4.) Because there is error in the said judgment in Eevicw, inasmuch as by 
, r proof of record, the said covered drain from the tannery to respondent's, referred 
to in said judgment, was constructed tindcrva bj'-law pi tho Council of the 
municipality, by a committee formed for that purpose under tho direction and. 
supervision of an officcjr of tho said council," and not by appellant as erroneously 
adjudicated. 



3 



1 — 1^ .* ■' 
— — -v . '- .'»■ ' — :_, — -^ i" ; '■ - 



COUIIT Of (JUKBNB UKNCH, 16M. 



■1» 



vent their-^^dl;. "'"^ "^^ "" "P"" ''"'''' ' '"''' 'PH'-t w,.. u„„bl, .0 prc- 

ao\ n J L ^ I"" ""' '^'V" "KS^^tod by ODy net of the appcllZ 

procedipg the respondent'; hcIL' ""' '""'""^ " "^"""^ *•>« ''" >-" ^ 
' ve^"''" ""T ''° *PP""*"' aubn.!.,. that the judgment should be re- 

C.7S1 "''a'! To"''"'" *''" ''PP^»'">i«!^J the following authoritlea • 
m Ifif P T • *^^' "' "^' ''"'' S»9' ^59, 2212, 2270. ^ 

n W O T J5 • '^«'F"*n »»• Joseph. 

(4)7LogaNew8,p.34. P. C. Judgt. on A t.. 600, 560 C C ' 
TaiUandroLogUIative4e8 Manufactures "'«»"» t- t. 

, Brunei <>t«||ta|nent inaalubros. 

Wood, Law of Nuisances (2d. edn • • 

?8, Sirey, Codes SoJl '''' ^"^^ ^"P"*"**" """^ °«t«« to Nos. 74, 76. 7?; ^ - 

8ituati;.nofehep^S^7ifo™\e%^^^ 

been instrumental io havinir thn Hr«!n .\^T^ .• "^"^ *""* moreover he had 

had aggrakteJ the nSnei in ZZ^^"'''*"*^ T?'"^ «'^«'' »"<» i" »h« way % 

ciaimi5m.g«,. judgiSr^'ji.Sd'jr^r "'"'"' '° ^'^'^ ^-'^^^ ^ - ■ - 

./: i\i«i»«^ attorney for appellant. U * * 

j; -4. -A^ ilfbcAoy, attorney for respondent. ' • 



'f\ 



N 



260 



COUR !)IJ »ANC RK lA UKINp, nRfl6. 



COUR DJU-lttNC l«8 LA HKISI6, 188fl. 
IN AVPRI/. _■■''' 

SIUNTRRAL, ad jAnviik |iM«. 
IjM'hon. Juf^oa Monk, [(ammay, ^kmirr, Crohm ot Bady; 



1^ 



. (Pi^rHiI'Mr* #«, C'oMr fm/ffintrf,) 



■r 



ArriLAMTt; 






. ' ^ DAME ZULU ORROUIRB IT via. .^ 

*■ ' . ■ . V, • 

w. (PrmanJirrut fnX'oUt Inffruurtf) 

' -J \ 

iNTIMlai ^ 

Jd^I !— 1. Qu'un^iiji^n pour fAire Mnnuler iin InvMtnirt rigilll^if mpnt clot «n JaitTcn lo 
*' -iireicrit pur dU aiu \ cuuipt«r Uc 1a date de la dlte clotura. 
3. Que la T«ute d«!i droiii de la l«nim« conimuuv en bieni, provvuant de I* 
iiicGCulon de «a m^rf , , quuii|ue nuu pri'c<-d6<i d'uAe rvddiUun da 
coinpte en forme K'gale par U p^re coname cbef de la cororoun^uti et 
tuieur de m% enfant* tquiraut i\ u\)e eitlniatloii de lej drolti e^ \ la 
' d('«liMrKii'd''iceu^i et (|u'uiie aotlop pour fiiirc annulvr telle vento M 
pr«fc'r|t par dlx ana i _ 

3. <Quc dam I eopece, letliniatiun de« dUi droltr ayant v\.b talte et ^-labile au dit 
ncti- de ve lite, II en ri-iulte (|Me I'inllnive n'avnit qu'une actiun }'n 
r^forniution de ciiin|'>ie, Incpivllu «o preicrit par dix am u compter do 
•a majoril<! (art. 2243,0. C.) .' .- 

JoMcph Grd^oire ct Sopliio DupuiR, Ioa p6ro ot ui6ro (los pnrticA cfTcutto cause, 
contract^rcnt morinj/c houh lo rt^gituo do la cptiimunuutd lo 22 HvptcuilKv 
1829. . . 

Hophio Dupuis il<!c(^Hla Ic 20 ft^viicr 1^-tK, Uissant pour Ii<5rithcr8 Ropt cnrunls 
I^UR (lu dit luaringe, nu tloiiibro duitqucU scut lea purtjCH on ootte ouusc, tV lo 
22 juilici 1848, lo dit Jcsopli Qr<?,u;oii'c, pi^ro, Put naiuoiiS tu^cur \ soa onfants 
ulors touH oiiucurn, ct proccdii auwitut il4'invoiituiro dos bicim do, la dito coni- 
uiunnut<S dovnnt Mc. J. B. Lukin, iiotuire; cot invoiitiiiro futdAiufnt olos on 
justice ni|iH*t qu'il aiipcrt'uu cortifictit, pt'Cii 45-du do.s^ior. 

Lo 2(( ft'vricr 1854, lu dcniandercssc, Julio Gro^oirc, encore niineliro, ^pousa 
Thoui|i8 (jlirard rous Ic r<$;jiino do lu couiuiuuuutd, et Ic 9 juillot 1855, pur 
note rc^u devant Mc. M^rizii, notairo, lo dit Tlionius Girurd ct son Spouse vcn^ 
dircnt bu dit JoNoph Grcgoirc, pore, touH Ics droits niobilicrs ot imniobilicrs do 
rintiniC-c dans hi succesiiion do sa lucTc. * 

Lo SOjuin 18&I), Joseph Gr«^j:^ire,-p«^rc, i^pousa en scoondw noccs Daiuo Marie 
Siniard, la mine en cause, soum ]o rd^iiue dclu couiniuuaut($. ■ 

Lc 13 octobre 1881, Joseph Gn^goiro, piro d6c«5du, laissnnt, parson tcstanicrUt 
du 23 septcmbro 1881, pour scs Idgataires univcrscis Joseph Gr<Sgoiro ct Nupo- 
l<!on Gi^goire, deux (|es ddlcndcurs appcUiits, ot Ics onfants ndM cl ii noitro du 
mariagc de Gilbert Gresoire ct Aduiino Trcuiblay; au-xqucls la dciuandcrestic » 
laitnonimor un tutcur ud hoc puuVlos fins do la prdsento action. 

■ * 'J . '^ '^ ^ 



w. 



4 • 

, OOUK lib BANC UK LA UKI^B, \%m. 



J. 



%vr 



Mtion ■.. prtioiuion, p„uv„nt ^ dimmer oomn.o «uit ' "."j" 

U Q«« ru.,«u«irJ*«.ii ,M.r J««,ph (Mgoiru, ,kVr*, ci ,.u| ,«rc«« nu'il h •»,>. 



.•«r«i( umiN (Jo RiKner lu <i«<rui^r» f(i<!niii)n • ^ 

rnJ^' ; ,1, '•'•"'•"'»•*"»"'" •>« •"•«"« "•«*»'d rendu prJo-cph (Jr. Jo 

1 ncto do ,o„to doH droit, do la du„„.„dnro«a d.n,> ,uooo.«io„ io . Iro^^o 

• . "2^^ 'J'* «"» y o«t^or,oor„^. ; 4...'a oo quo Ic, d,5.o„dour, «olonroo„d«m„i, T* 
rcnd^^B compto do luSutWIo et kohJou quo lo dit J.,.oph Or^goiro p-Nro^ a ol 
A.^ dc, .cnndo^la dcnondcrcMo dop..i, |„ 22 j»il|.. ,8H. j..;,'^' ";;' ^.^^^^'^ 
J6.V». «.non A payer a la don.andoroH.o uno «„„„,o dtf «:J00 000 . 

lioa nppoUiitu ont pliijdtf iM/^r rt/t,i .- ' 

' Ir. i j:::ri7^'^''r''" ^""'' °^ '™ <>-nndor.«c.-co,„„.u., e„ bt v^ 

1„ JoHcpHlrdffo,ro, p.Vro. par ac.o.du 9 juiHot 1^55, no pout fitro «onaidtird; 
, o„'"7 ^'^' '"''^ P-'"''."^ -t™ •»>'"r «t pypillo- cmumo non^pr^o6Jd do' Ldd 

t.o„ cl^oompt^attondu quo ?otto vonto „ %d ai„.i f„ite ^^rlo n,arl dZ ' 

jrLlnbir '!"'"' '^1'^""""''' ''^^It do f:.ire octto veatclan, roddition da .on.pto- 
2oji„o l-acUpn on nullii^J cl^ditlto' da 9 juillct 1855, o«t proaorlte et no- 

nfTtl77r'r '-•^'-^ ^"Wor^o laJatJ dudit.ctoW^ 
la jnnjonte do la d}(iuandcrc8«o. * . v» w 

• L'ajipolant dit :— ' -\ >, ;\ ' ' 

. .La prohibition port^e dan« I'articlo :U1 du Codo &vll, qui roproduit I'ancicn - 

, dro|^, o.t restremto aux traifd. cntro'tutotfr ot pupillo, ot ^oVapplique pas au^ 
h^t-en,, hJ«ata.rea ou-oosHionnuirc, du nunour. qui, cut, po^vo^tr^i 10/^^.0.0 
lis 1 ontondent avco lo tuteur. • «"•»""« 

• Or, l-intlmdoodpoj,,^ Thomas Ojrardio 20 fijvrior 1854.:hous lo regime do 

tCTTt \ ' t;! '''^•'i^P-* "- '<^P«°-, ani, artioullnB-do " ' 
Ta.t.s. roue ks bcnsmobihers dTTintirado dan. la suooossion do »a mdro 
comm. son aot.on en roddition do compto do tutclle oontre Josoph Grdgoire, -son 
p»ir^8ontdtV,lor8tombdjd;i„., la oomn.unautd do Wens Wtro ello ct son dit 
.^poux ct «onMds lor. dovcq« la propriete .^ «ouHe oontrolo oxolusif de ce 
. t»ior,(^m,loll juillot ISSS.wond A ^ph Or^goire, ^,6re, tous lea droits 



UraMii% 
flial. 

k 



ft rlr. 



V 



IjM 






m 



288 



COUR DU BANC DE LA RElM lfi86. 



et Tir. 



'. e "F*" mobilicrs et iramobilicrs dof riiitinido dans la suooossion do sa mdre ;!;l'ihtini<5e 
D«n*'j ii ^"J"'"^"^ ''®'''° vcnto, muis sa prdsenoc n'oit Dfiacssairo qu'en aut ant que sea 
Oregoire ^'""^ jiumobiliors pcuvent <?tre concqmds et nullemcnt qaant ^ aef bicns 
mobili^rs ou bipiis do conimdnautd. Lo ina'ri disposait seul doa bfeng mobilierB, 
ct si <!et acto ronforino un traitiS relatif {l la, gcstioa do ' Joaeph.. Qrdgoire, p6ro, . ■ 
. coninio tuteur do I'intiujdo, lo mari pouvait fairc tfcl traits, ot la prohibition do la 
roi JO s'dtdnd pas ii lui; c'ost lo mari qui dovait recevoir lo oompto de tutellc et 
il p6uvait traitor ou compromettro aveo I'cx-tutftur de sa femmo, rolativement 4 
la ^oation do CO dextticr Sana recevoir do coinpte-do tutelte. . - i^'- .- 

/C'est 111 la doctrine de toua les auteura : 

1 2 Boileuoi, art. 472, p. 475. " L'artiole 472 no a'appljque pas aux h^ritiera 

'( du mineur, ni aux Idgatairas, nt aux oessionnaires, puisque le inineur n'est 

; f plus en sc^no; lea raiadns toutes peraonneUoa qui on> motiv<S oea articles onk 

/" diaparu.* (Idem, p. 237.) r~" • - 

A Demolombe, 2 minoritS, No. 78. "Mais voilill que 1« mineur est mort, soit 

/ " pendant la tutello, soit aprea son expiration ; et o'eat i'aes hdrit^era ou a sea 

" sucoesaeurs universela ou k titre universel, que I'ex-tuteur doit rendre 

*!v#ompte." ' 

"L'ajrticle 472 eat-il encore applicable? On ne saArait s^rieuaement' le 

" pr^tendre. Non seulement, en efiFet, le t&i^e manque ici com pl^tement; nous 

•' ne voyona plua en apdne le mineur lui-m6me, devenu majour ou^mancip^, 

"maia lea considerations aur leaquelles le texte est fond^, ont ^galemoDt 

. " djsparu." , 

Id. No. 79. — "La m6me solutipp nouajparait devoir 8tre appliqu^e, en oef 

*' qui ooncerne lea auocesaiona k titre particulier du mineur .^' / 

"IlenseraitdeTmeme d'un dohataireen(tre-vifs." " "^ "^'J^. 

" No. 80. — II en eat encore de eidme d'lin acheteur ou cessionnaii^ que!obii-> 
que Jt titre on^reuz." ^. ' • ' 

" No. 81. — Cea prlnoipea nous paraftfaient aussi devoir Stre appliques dan» 
*' une hypoth^ qui pourrait ae pr^aenter asaea souvent : celle oii la future 
«« Spouse apporterait en dot a son mari Paction en reddition de compte, qu'elb -v 
*' aurait centre son anoien tuteur, ascendant ou autro." 
« De deux ohosea Tune : 

"Oulemari, par I'effet doa convictions matrimoniales, aurait Tentidre efe 
" Hbre diapositiftn de I'aotion en reddition de eompte apport^iB par la f^mme,. 
*' sans ttre tenu de la lui restituer plus taM ni de lui en rendre compte lui-mdme,. . 
" et alors nous croyons qu'il faudrait lui appliquer oe que nous venons de dire 
" du cessionnaire en gdn^ral, et que Tar'ticle 462 no lui scrait pas applicable. SI 
"done, par example, la femme avait mis en oommunaut^ son action en leddi- 
" tion de eompte, le inari, pouvant administrer et mdme aligner sen! les biens 
" de la oommunante (art. 1421), pourrait, en obna^quence, recevoir sans aoounft < 
.*' oondition, le compte de tutelle, ^ui ne serait dii d^sormais qu'jk la flomma> 
*' nant^ elle-m6me." \ > 

Cept ezaotement le oas dans la pr^sente oauae, oti le mari de I'intim^ agis- 
w iti ■ponr lijiionflme-comme 'chef de la c omntuaaa«4^aile eompte detateik 




COUR DU BANC DE LA BEINE, 1886. 



2®^ 

•<tait dQ, et pouvait en consdquence traUer aveo I'ex-tuteur de sa femiiie sans 
restfiohon et conime il I'eotendait. 

Ceta aetion- a M intontde le 18 avril 1882, vingt-sept ana apris la 

paasati^e I'acte dont on de.uandc la nullity. Les appclanta ont plaids la pres- 

rondodixans; d'apres rarticlo 2270 du Code Civil cette prescription 

^^^mencdoavant la promulgation du code est rd»lde confprmdment A Tancien 

Dana la caus^ de'Moreau' et Motz, 7. L. C. R. p. 147, iha 6te ddcidd par 
cette Honorable tfcur, le 10 juars 1857, que la prescription de dix ans s'appli. 

«r! r" TJiT ° "'"' ""•"'■ ^'^'"'- J"Se Lafontaine s'exprimait comme 
suit N I p. 167.} - 

<' 1 ^!/*'"! ^^ '" ""'"' ^ """' ^"^^ " ''««•'' «" supposant qu'ils puissent 
^^ etre at aquds, ne sont pas nuls deplcin droit, ils soM sculement arihuables, oii 
^^ .sujets a rescision. Nul doute que I'actibn fondde sur leur annulabilite ne dttt 
^^ etre portde dans les dix ans. L'appolante est bien fondde A invoquer cette 
„ Fej"Pt'OD dans ji^irpdnstances de\la cause. Les ddcharges de compte de 
„ '"''*"f;q«o«q«ed|||^s»o» vists tab\U»,non dlsjunctUrationibus, ne peu- 
^^ vent plus §tre attaqudes -uprds les dixVnndes de leur date, postdrieures 4 la 
^^ majorud, suivant les arrSts rapportes par MM. Louet et Brodeau, son annot*. 
^^ teur, sous la lettre T, sbmniairc 3, ce temps ayantdtd jugd suffisant pour que 

le mineur devenu majeur pflt examiner s'il avait etd Idsd I" 
^^ "I^a jurisprudence duParlcmentde Paris est queje mineur doit se pour- 
^^ voir.dansles dixuns de sa majority, contre la transaction faite avec son tuteur 

avant le compte, et ndn visis tabilis, sinon, qu'il est non recevable inrds les 

odixans. * % ^ 

'*■■'*'■ V, ^-^V" / ■ ■ '- 

" (Ancien Denisart. au mot "Tutelle," p. Il7, No. 103.)" ■''' ' ' ' " 
^^ Larombidre, art. 1304, No. 40, p. 62 : " C6 qui nous confirmed daiis notre 
^^ opinion, o'est que dans notre anclenne jurisprudence, le pupilfe quj avait trait6 
yeo son tuteur, sans ezamen de domptes et sans com mu'nication de pi^es 
^justificatives, avait, aux teriues derordonnanco,dix ans du jour de traitd pour 
' s'en faire rolev,er par intdrinement des lettres de rescision." 
Ordonnance de 153}<, art 134. 
Meald, De la 3Iinorite, pp. 492, 493. 
■^^ Argou, tome ler, Edition de 1787, p. 68 : « Toutes les transactions faites 
entre le tuteur et le mineur devenu majeur, sur la question de la tutelle, sont 
^1 nuUes, et le mineur peut «'en faire relever dans les dix nns, k moins que les 
*' comptes n'aient dtd examines, et que toutes k's pieces justificatives n'aient 6i6 
" mises entre les mains du miueur." 

B)usseau de LacombS, wo. ife«<i<M<ton, 8. lire, No. 4 : 
^ " Mineur n'est recevable 4 se pourvoir apr^s les dix ans d<r la majority contre 
" la transaction faite aveo son tutaur avant le compte et non visis tabulis^^' 

Pothier, Burnet, 10 vol, p.' 357, No. 745. 

' Voioi commentM'intim^e discute la question de la prescription soulev^een 
•cette cause : \ 

> La derni6re \uestion i^ ] decider dit-il est celle de la prescription. L'aatinn 



J. OroKoiio 

et aL 

et 

OftiM Julia 

O'egoiire 

•Uir. 



;i 



m 






«*erei!8 par i'lnti^^e est^elle presoripiil>Ie par 10 ans oupir 30 ans 



y- 



S4 . 



390 



COUR DU BAIirO JDE LA EEIlte, 1Q86. 



J. Orf'Kdre 

ct Hi. 
C't 

Damo Jqlle 

GrogoUe 

et vir. 



La Cour InfiSrieufe a d6e\at6 que la prescription do 30 ans seulo a'appliquait 
A I'instonco; nous maintenons que.o'est {'article 2243.do notre code qui s'appli-. 
quo au oas aotuel et nonpas I'artiole 2258. Ces deux articles soat tous deux 
donn6s oommo^roit ancien et quolquola question ait pu fltro discutdo autrefois, 
11 nous sembWque cette cour doit adopter IcsVvues des commissaires de la 
codification cMme rdglant cette (j^ultd, non Bculbuiehl A I'avenir mais aussi 
pour les actes passes II vant la codifi(^tijoih 

Les nppclants ont cittf 4 I'appui-de leurs prdtentionsla^atfie (arMorcaji & 
Motz, rapporuSe au 5 L. C. R. paRo 43* et 7 L. C. R. page 147. Ea Coui^ 
Inftrieure les trojs jujres A.i'unanim|t«5 ont ddcidd que'l'action pour faif4 
■ .declarer nul un traitd intervenu entre un tuteur et un pupHle, avant reddition 
de comi)te, ,n*6tait prescriptible que par 30 ans ; la cour dtait conipos«So de» 
honorables juges B<n^n, Morjn et Badgley. La'Cour d'Appel ooropos<5o de ' 
quatre juges seulemenl, savoir lo juge en chef Lifontaine, les juges Caron, 
Mondelet et Short » renversd le jugement do la Cour Supdrieure et a d^clar4 
cette 'action ptesoriptibte par 10 ans. Deux des juges qui avaient sidgd dan» 
oette cause formaient partie de la commission pour la codification de no9 Jois, 
savoir: les honorables juges Caron et Morin. ' 

Dans le rapport des commissaires I'on voit quo nonobstant cette decision dan» 
la cause de-.Moreau et Mots/ils ne oonsiddraient pas encore cette question- 
oomme r^gl^e; lis suggdrent I'artiole 2243 comme rtfglant un point douteux et 
lal^laturea approuvi cetto suggestion ; quoique le code ne soit pas d^ciaita- 
toire pour le p^4, il n'y a pas de doute que sur les points douteux 8on,jBUtorit6 
doit avoir iin grand poids, et nous ne voyons pas comment cette cour, 
maintenantj croirait devoir adopter uw? opinion oontrairc. Ea effet, abstraction 
faite de tuAn code, la majorit^-des autours, en nombre ct en importance soutien- 
iient la doctrine ^nonc^e dans I'acticle 2243 de notre code. Nous fie reprodui- 
rons paa ici les nombreuses autorit($s citdes aux rapports de la cause de Moreaa 
et Motz ; 5 L. C. R. pages 457 k 460. 7 L. C. R. 221. Nous nous oontenterona 
de r^ftrer en outre a la Bibliothdque du Code CiviJ de DeLormier, VoT. 3, page 
31, sur I'artiole 311, oA nous voyons que les autorit^s cities par les codificateurs 
sont toutes dans le sens do la prescription de 30 ans h I'exception d'Ai^ou ; noua 
rtf(^rons aussi a Aubry et Rau, Vol; I, page 494, note 35. Laurent, Vol. 6 
page 178, No. 165 — 8 Demolombe, No. 169. ,i . . \ 

Voici les considdrants de la Cour d'Appcl : 

Considdrant que par son actiQn Tintimde demanderesse en premiere instancfllf 
demande 4 faire prononeer la nullity de I'inventairo de la communautd qui a. 
existd entre ses pdre et m^re Joseph Grdgoire et Sophie Dupuis, fait par le ilit 
Joseph Grdgoirc, deyant Trottier, notaire, aprds le d^cds de la dite Sophie 
Dupuis, et sa nomination comme tuteur 4 ses enfants mineurs & raison de cer^ > 
taines irr^gularitds qui se seraient produites dans la confection du dit inventairfe, 
et en particulier de l'omi.ssion du notaire d'avoir fait signer la dernidre vacation 
par le dit Joseph Gr6goire, le dit inventaire commence le 24 juillet 1848^ 
termini le 28 septembre et clos en justice le 24 d'octobre de la m6me ann^. 

iddrant que I'intimfo demtad&ausBi par IJt^dite actioff A iair g| 
la nullity d'une vente faite par dite demanderes6e*teincore alore mineure, raais la 



\ 




ft 

COUR DU BANC D^ LA RBINE, 1886. 



•7 



291 



Gr6goiro 
et Tir. 



avait cu iHestlr I „. •" ™°^.'"«"/«""»obiIier. le dit Joseph Ord^oiro ""■""- 

rendu a4rx::J:rsr r" '^-' -^'''^'^-'^^^^^ 

^^^rZ^^^^ "on action que les ddfbn- 

inventairord.'uliAr«m„„» i • "'"' ^"*™ '*» confection du dit 

de 10 „;;^pp '^^^^^^^^^ ^".-'"•'""^ r '» P^^-"^« -jetion ; que la pre«,riptio„ ' 

du.dit invent' ire °''""' '^ ^"" "'^ " P'"« "^ ' ^^^'^^''^^ '^n-l"tioa 

Buc^r!fn'del7'.'"r'' ?^^^^-''« d« k demanderesse intia.<5e dan. 1. 

quence ; " *" ^'^ "'*°'^^' ^»'l"«"° ««' Pre«crite en cons6, 

Consid^rant que la dite vente comprend le prix de «inft !•«,♦; r . 

tai«r el,i le 24 Ttobre 1848 ' ? • ""' ^^ '"" ''°'''''' P»' l'''»^«"- 
prescrlte. par dix ans et ddhr>.,t^ I« , " 7^*"*"^® ' """"^ ^^e la demaudcresse 



/ 



v^ 



~Kt 4 rs^ard de la^ 
demanderease intil 



^uSte ou^^otion de Thomas Girard, le mari de la dite 
^*ux fios d mtervenir en I'instance : 



-rKI 



Ml 

m 

ill, 



292 



COUR DU BANC DE LA 



L REim, 



188«J. 



J. Or6golro 

CtHl. 

et 
Deme Julie 
OrC'goirc . 
ct vir. 



Considdrant quo oottc oour a iidjugd Bur lo luurito dc lu prd-ioptc uction|n la 
ddboutant ct que cottc requt^tc n'est pas niaiiiteiijiiit recovablc, lu dito motion ou 
rcquete en intervention est rcjet<?o qunnt it, present f-ims frais. 

(L'honoralic juge Munk, dissident). 



Paradia et Chansi, avocats des appciunts'. 

J.^E. liubuloux, conscil. 

Geoffrion, Rinfret et Dorion, avocats do rintimiJc, 



Ju,^cnlCllt rciivcr^c'. 



. ^ COUR dp: REVISION. 

, MONTREAL, 30 MAI 1835. , 

- -; Com»n SlCtlTTE, GlLL^ CiMON, JJ. ■ 

• • \ P. EDOUARD LAiiELLE, 

- ^ ' ■ Demandei-r ; 

■ ■ ■. ■ ' ' ' , '^^- . "■• . ■ y - ' _.. 

PIBHRE P. MARTIX, "'^ 

' • - . » J, , DIfPENDEUa. 

Pourauitc en ilommagen rimiltant tic prociiU^ judiciaircs — 11 fnut prouvcr que 

Taction qui a donui nainaonce avx dommages a iti inatituie m<diciciiaement 

et Sana cavae ou ruisous siiffisuritca, , 

Voici le jugcnicut de la Cour dc preaiieie instance (Pupincau, J.) Les falts 
de la cause y sont exposes : ' 

Consid^rant quo Ite dcmandeur poursuit lo ddfendeur pour une somme de 
quinse millo piastres de dommages qu'il pr<S(end que Icd^fbddcur lui a cau'sds . 
C9 instituant une action pour sept mille quatre cent cinquante piastres elf^rente- 
' ct-un centins, dont^uue partie formait portion d'une ancionne cr^ance. que le 
defendcur avait contre le present dcmandeur et qui avait 6l6 comprise dans un 
concordat, ci> vertu duquel le ddfundeur Martin et les autres or^anciers du 
dcmandeur LabcUe avaient rdduit Icurs reclamations k quaraiite centins dans la ' 
piastre ct accords des delais de trois, six et neuf qioi's pour le paiement des 
billets consentis pour le montarit ainsi reduit ; , ktquelle cr4ancoy>le dit Martin 
pn^tcndait avoir le droit dc fairc rcvivre, au^'icrmies du concordat, attendu que 
le dcmandeur Labclle n'avuit pas rencontre ponctuellcmcnt, a leur ^h^ance, les 
billets qu'il lui avait donnds, en vcrtii du dit concordat; i 

Considerant qu'il ^tait Ddce.°sairo au soutien de Taction du demandeur de 
prouver que la poursuitc-ch question, prise par P, P, Martin contre'luij I'avait 
dtd par malice, et. sans cause ou raison suffisantc, et que le demandeur n'a pas 
prouvd que Taction du dit P. P. Martin avait ^t^ in teniae avec malice et sans 
cause ni raison Suffisantc ; ■ j 

C.onsiddrant qu'une partie dc la dite demando de P. P. Martin centre Labelle, 
. fidvoir sa reclamation pour sept cent cinquiiQ^neuf piastres et quatre-vingt-diz 
centins, dtait rtSellcment bien fonddc et a 4t6 maiutenue sur la confession mSme 
. du dit P. E. %belle ; 

^ Goneiddrant que I'autre plartie de Taction', quoiqu'elle ait ^t^ renvoy^e, 
'::. pouvait fitrfl. niatl&Efl i l pretcntionB.janttairea,san8-mauMda e foL dvident c ^ct^qufc ^ 



P. E. Labclle lui-mciue avait pr&te main-forte aux pretentions tlu dit P. P 



COUR DE REVISION, 1886. 



298 



Martin, en rcconnnissant imprudemment, dana son <Sorit Lous seing-privo du P E- Ubell« 

. premier do jum mil huit oent .quntre-vingUrois, qtie los iept cent oinquante- 1. p ',-• tf«. 

nouf piastres A quatro-vingt-dU eentins qu'il rodevait alors m ddLdeur ^ 

Jlartin dtaient du8.oommot,u^ son billet oohu ro vingt-ef-un do noveinbre mil 
nuit cent quatro-vingt-doux ; , A( ■ 

Considdrant quo lo demandour n'a pns prou^tque leStlompaages qu'il prdtend 
avoir soufferts aient 6t6 oausdsnar le soul fait, par loHit P. P. Martip, d'avoir 
rdolamd plus qu'il n'a, do fait T)btenu par le jugement prononcd sur la poursuite 
^ont so plmnt lo demandour ; 

La Cour rcnvoio I'aotion du domatidour aveo ddpens distraits 4 Mtres. 
Arehambault et St. Louis, avooats du ddfendeur. . V - r -^ 

n a • r, . , Jugement oonfirm<j. ■ c' 

«eo/rto», /Norton, Za/fe«r e« i?in/>e«, ayocats du demundeur appelant. 
Arehambault et St, Louis, avooats d.n ddfondeur intiiii6. 



/ 



• 1 COURDUBANCDELARBINE, 1886. 
//^ (en appkl.) 

/ . MONtRBAL, 27 MAI 1886, . 

Coram Sm^ A. DoaioN, juge on chef, Monk, Tessiee, Cross et Babt, J.J. 

THE TRUST & LOAN COMP4NY OP CANADA, 

^'"^O'tderesteenlirelnttanee, 

' . APPgLANTB; 

";■. ■' ■/ 

JBAN-BAPTISTE ANDEGRAVB & FRANCOIS ANDEGRAVB, 

■D^endeurs en lire fnttance, 

' ■.,''"- IT ■ ^ ' - . 

PHILIPPE BLISEE PANNBTON, ^ 

. ^,. " Tiers- Oppoiant eh lire Instance, 

" bnutt. 

Di/uutdengnificaHon d;action-Qui peat »' en privaloir—Est-ce une nulK^ 

aitolue quant auz tiert—Acquietcemmt. 
^Voioi comment se litlo jugement "de la Cour Supdrieure. (Tomnoe. J) 
On verra que les faits y sont suffiaamment expliquds. 

La Cour, aprds avoir entendtt le tieif8K)ppo8ant et la demanderesse oontestante 
parleursavooita sur lo mdrite de la tierce opposition et de la contestation d'ioelle. 
CrCre^Sr" '"'^'°" P-^-'*->--du aussiles t^moio^ 
^ CoDsiddrant que I'opposant ne pent avoir sur les Wens des dgfendeurs plus de 
droits qu, Is n en ont eux-mSmes; qu'il e^t.ndoessairement reprdsenbJ par eux 
r.""" °_^.*^* ''"" ^'" ayant^ause ; en consequence de quoi I'opposant en cette 



ace-a»a»ttn Bti 



. ,, '»Ywirlr^n)iirde-ktacrco opposition, 'puliqi^rf^t^ vYsi 

vw^ eux que comme un mandaat vis-^vis de ses mandataires, U n'est pas ua . 



I 



■ \ 



\- 



1 

^94 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



The TriMt A ^, . ,, , * 

Loiiii Com- ^^onsidCrant quo quclquo HOit I'intdratquc I,o or«<anoior pout avoir dans la 

Camuhl "®"^""''0" dcs bicns do son ddbitour, il est souniis A rautorito dq la chose 

ft jugoo centre colui-ci I i " - ' 

grave A K. Considdrant que la prcuvt dtablit que les ddfendcurs ontf acquiesce' au juge- 

Indegrave mcnt rendu contro eux, ct quo si lo ticrsopiiosant on oetto cause pouvait invo- 

P. E*Pan.; '1"<"' en sa favour Ics terines de I'articld 1031 dn Code Civil, il ne pourrait oxer 

noton. cor en justioo que les droits do ses d»Sbitours, c'est-il-diro la requdto civile e 
rapjwij et lour droit & la rcqu(»tc civile est f6rim6 et do d«Slai pour I'appel eft 



■<V 



Considdrant que la vcnte par decrct dontso plaint I'opposant a 4tv faito par le 
^hdrif apr^s les avis et publications voulus par la !oi ; 
X^onsiddrant quo le droit do la tiereo opposition ne pout appartcnir ii I'oppo- 
sant actuol qui n'avait qu'un droit d'liypotli«iquo sur lo fond, A nioins qu'il ny 
ait cotre les plaidours uno collusion fr;iuJulcuse pratiqudo contre lui ; 
Considdrant quo Topposant n'ii pas prouvd les alldgations do sou opposition, 
Deboute la dite opposition avec ddpens. * 

L'opposant pOrta la cause eu rdvision : 'voioi le jugcmont des honorables ji^'cs 
Popineau, Jettd, Lorangcr. ' 

La eour, apris avoir ontondu les parties sur la Fernando de rdvisjon in 
jugement rendu en oetto cause, lo vingt^euf avril mil huit cent quatro-vin«;t- 
quatre, renvoyant la tierce-opposition du dit Panneton ; pris connaissance (Ids 
dcritures des dites parties pour instruction de lour catJse, cxainind leurs pidce» 
et productions respeciivcs, dftincnt considdrd la prouve ct ddlibdrd ; 

Attendu quo Panneton, crdancier ayant hypotlidque sur les immeubles vendus 
en cetto cause s'est pourvu par tjercb opposition contro le jugement en vcrti 
duquel la dema^deresso a fait proc.|der ^ la vcnte des dits biens et en a demandi 
la nullitd, uinsi quo do toutes procddures subsdqxiontcB, disant t[ue Taction de a 
dite demanderesse n'a jamais dtd jsignifido rdguliiremont a I'un des ddfendeurs 
Frangois Andegnive, Icquel n'avait pas aiors de domlllK} dans co pays et n'a pis 
<Ste non plus assigiid comme absobt ; 

Attendu que lo tiers-opposarit alligue de plus, que o'est d son insu que la 
demanderesse a ainsi procddd/ contre les ddfendcurs ; qu'elle lui a cachd inten- 
tionncllement sa procedure dvina le but do le frauder; que les immeubles vendus 
valaient beaucoup plus que/le monfant do sa crdance, et quo ndanmoins la 
demaiidercsso les a fait vei/dre et rachcter pour elle-mSmo 4 vil prix, privant 
ainsi itijufctoment Ic tiorsypposant Jc sa crdance, s'iilevant ii deux cent quatre- 
vingt-seize piastres ; 

Attendu quo le dit panneton soutient quo dans ccs circonstances il est bien 
fondd A s.(^fourvoir c/mmo il I'a fait et d |nvoqucr la nullitd des. procddures 
faite^confcre gen dit ddbitcur j - "^ \ 

Attendu quo la demanderesse a contcstd- cette oVposition, disant en substance 

que pour dviter desA frais Jean-Baptistfe 4^ndegrave,rautre ddfendeur, ice dflment 

autorJPd par Buii Mre Frangois avait diu domicile pour oc dernier, pour le» fina 

-dcrl' actiou do ht-demaTmcresse ft Sa propre rdsidence, A Montreal, oA la signi- 

fication de i'actJou a dtd en consdqucnce rdgulidrenaent faiteaux deux ddfendcurs 



l-^-. 



^■■■p,\t.i.': ,'^«V7f,» ■■;,1-^?'- 



COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 188G. 



206 



ct quo lo dit Frli^n^ois Andograve a onsuito acquic8c<J i\ co qui avnit <?t<5 ainsi fuit Th* Thitt j| 
pnr son frdro ; J^"*" ^^^^ 

Attondu quo In donianderos«c soutiont on outre qu'^e no s'est renduo *-'«'"ttd» 
coupablo d'aucuno fraude A I'oncontro du tiors-oppoaant, et quo d'ailleurs oo J B.^Ande- 
dcrnier n'a perdu sa or<Sanco quo parco qu'il n'a pas survoilld sos int^Jrflts en «"''"' * *■' 



assistant & la vento dcR inimcubles qui avait 6t6 rdgulitVcrnont annoncdo; 

Attondu qu'il est dtabli en prouvo que, lors do i'institution do I'aotion do la 
domandercsso, le d<5fendcur Fran9ois Andegravo n'avait pas do domioilo dans lo 
pays depuis environ deux ans ; quo son froro n'avail nuouno autoritd pour lo 
rpprdi'ontor ni accepter signification pour lui, ni dliro domicile A cetto fin, ot quo 
lo dit Francois Andegravo n'a jamais ratifio los proet^d^s do la deiuanderesso 4 
Qet d^rdct n'y a jamais acquiescd; 

AttiJndu qu'il rdsulto do plus do la prouvo faito quo la domaderosso oonnais- 

snit cetto absence du dt^fendeur Fran9ois Andegravo lors do I'institution do son 

action ; qu'ello mC-me n'a portd sa demand© qu'apriis quo des procd Jurcs pour 

fairo vendro los dits biens^ a la demunde d'un autre crdanoior, eussent 6t6 

■arrC'tdes sur une autre opposition faito au nom «u dit Frongois Andegravo par los 

r avocats et proourcurs de la dito domaoderesso ; quo cellcTCi a ensuito fait vendro 

les dits immoubles dos ddfendeurs H vil prix," savoir, I'une pour cinq piastres et 

I'autre pour dix piastres, et so les est fait aljugor i elJe-mfirac, puisqjj'clle les a 

revendus pour une sorame dedeux mille <}eux cents piastres, fiavoir, A un oliiffro 

ddpassant de pr^s de trois cents piastres, celui de sa propro crdanco, et do colle 

■du tiers-opposant rdunies; * 

Cansiddrant que I'absence de toute jignifioation rcguli<ire du bref d'assigbation 
•en cotto cause rend absolument nullo^ toute la procoJurc faito subsdquemment 
sur la dito demandc ; 

Considerant quo le tiers-opposant, qrdmcier dos dits ddfcndcurs, est bien 
fond<5 A invoquer cette nullit<S pour la protection do ses propres droits ; 

Considdrant quo la demanderesso ayant realise par In revcntc des dits im- 
meublesdes d^fendours plus que le montant requis pour payer sa crdance et cello 
du tiers-opposant, np saurait dquitabjements'approprie'r la totalite du produit de 
la dito vento et ddpouiller '^le tiers-opposant de la samme qui lui revient 
jastement] ,* 

Considdrant que les circonstances dans lesquelles s'cH pf*uite la vente des 
biens des ddfendeurs, tel quo susdit, donneut droit au tiers-opposant dose 
pourvoir oopame il I'a fait afin d'obtenir la reparation dii prejudice que cette 
vento lui causerait si ello dtait maintenue, et qu'il y a lieu, en consequence, 
d'accueillir favorablement le recours par'lui exercd j 

Casse ct annule le dit jugement du vingt neuf avril mil liuit cent quatre- 
vingt-quatre qui a ddboutd le dit Panneton do sa tierce-opposition, et procedant 
& rendre le jugomeni que la Cour de premiere Instance aurait dft rendre, annule 
et met 4 ndant, quant au dit Panneton, le jugement obtenu par la'demanderesse 
centre le ddfendeur Frangois Andegravo dit Champagne, le sept ddcembra mil 
huit ceni quatre-vingi-deux ; Tnnule ct m^ pareillement i ndant tousles pro- 
oedda faits subsdquemment sur le dit jugement contre le dit Fraogoia Ande- 



& P. 
Aodegrave 

el 
I'. K. Pan- 
neton. 



i 



;'« 



I r 



29G 



COOK DV banc DE la KEINB, 1880. 



"^S 



"KJ^'l- K'"'^' «» not«.„,„ont la vente de «)« droit, et part do propr.'.JU$ d«u« le« immou- 
^MOroi bles on question on octto ottUTO, navoii-: 

J r1 1 ^ty"'!"' **? '«"" "'•'"^ J»"^ '" 'l^'Ttior Suint-LoMw de I« 006 .lo Montreal 

P.JJ. Phb-I: q^oran^-Jcux p.ods do Jront Hur HoiiuntceUoizo piodn do prorondour, bornd 

trois (1043), d un o6ui p«r lo lot ci.apr.Ns ddorit ot do Kobtro cfltd par lo lot 
millo quarantchult (1048) avoo uno ,„:uho„ c„ piorro i.un dtage .ualigjjo. 

, ot-un (1041) dos plan ot l.vro do renvoi ofEoioln du qu.rtior Sai,.t-Loui« 

contenant^trcnt.,-H., plods do front sur 8oix»„lo.ot-Hoi,e piodado profondeur • 

bornd enf;ont par lu ruo Snint-Do.uiniqu,., on arriiro par lo numtfro liiille 
quaraote (1040) ot do I'autrc cotd par lo lot do torro d-dol. ddorit, avoo uno 
maison en bom i\ dcux>6tag08 iambrisudo on brique. 
Et ot. ood«iquonco ddolnro quo la u.oitid indiviHo dcs dita iinmeubles appart^y 
*nant au^dit traqyois Andegravo dit Ch«u.pagne rostortt affooteo et souniiso 
aw droits pr,v,l6g.A, et hypoth.5oairo« du tiors-opposant, pour la totalitd do sa 
fiance »vo.r pour la »o„,mo do deux oont quntre-ving<.sei,o .piastres, aveo do 
plus int^rfits et fruw ncoes-wiro., etoc oonuneai lo dit jugemont du septddoombro 
mil huit oent quat«*v.i,gt.d«u4 n'ettt jamais 6t4 rendu-ot quo la vonto des dits 
mmeubles n eftt pas e« lieu ; ,.t oondarnno la demandoresso A tous los ddpons, 
. ■ T/Z I I r«^i<^'ij«tanooquo do ootto Cour, dosquols d<$pen» distrao: 

Uon est aecord^o ^M^..&^. DoBollofeuillo, avxHjat du tiors-opposant. 

Cour de Revision et confirraa celui do lu cour do premidro instance 
(L hoD. juge Tessicr, dissident.) 

/..^n » I J F, Jugcmfent ronversd. 

Juaa^, Branchaud et Bauset, avooats do I'appelahto. 

, l>e Belle/euille et Bonin, Sivooata do Vintimi. 



V 



COUil DE RljVISIQN. 
MONTREAL, 31JANVIEB 1885. 
' Coram SicoTTB, Tobbanok, Lobanoeb, J.J. 

T^B SINCENNES-JleNAUGHTON LINE. DwiANMawsi; 

■- ■ ■■▼■. 

»' WILLIAM c. BANGS, D.KAND.oB-AmLAsr. 

^"''''i;«ZJ"""T"'?°..*"'"""'"' colonial navig„ant i I'intfirieur doit fitre 
enregis tr6 au d6g,r de I'article 2360,et 2361 du 0. 0., et qu'4 d6faut doM 
enregistrement 6Ublissant telle rente ou transport, lea crtandera 
LTl'^?Kr"*" P«>Pri6taire enregiatrfi au mom^t oi. t crdtt a IS 
donn6 i tel batiment, pour dtre pay68,de leurs crfiances. 
U jugement de la coar de premiAre ias4ce (Papineau. J..) ae lit comma 



Jvai 



Consid^rant que la Compagnie domanderesse pourfuit lo- d^fendeur 



pour Id 






^i. 



.-•~'iK'^y-^ 1^, 



COUR DE I{f:VIHlON, 1886. 



297 



»4. 



touogo do la barsfc " Haoul " dont lo ddfendcur dlait propri^talro, do Lnchioo 4'Jj"^'5i,"„**UJJJ" 
Tomploton, d'Ottawn iV Lnohino, do Licliino h Ottawu, d'Oltowa A Lnclilao ot * Utm 
do Buokinglum & Lachino, outre lo 23 d'ooiit ct lo 10 d'ootobro 1882, ot qu'oUo y. ^ ' 
r^olamo pour cO touugo la somiiio do cent piastros ot oiiiquanto oentins d'aprdu lo 
oompto produit au soutiuti desa doiiiando ; 

Considdrnnt qu'cllo a prouvd quo suivant I'usago cllo a fait credit Hi la barge 
*' Raoul " et au propridtrfiro cnrogistrtf do oollcTci ; ] 

Considdrant qu'il n'y avait pas d'autio propri<Jtniro onrogiiiti<J aux dat^^ 
moiitioppdofl daiH lo dit ooniptc, quo lo defoudour, ct quo co dorniur b'a jaolaii 
fait enrogiatror boq pr6tondu aoto do vetito au oapitniuo IJoatou, ot qu'il n'a 
jamais aiitrement fait connaitro ti lu Conip.ignio do«iandoro8BC cctto pr6tondu« 
vonto iV Baaton ot quo oo doroior no I'a pas fait coonaitro noo plus quo daaa le 
moig d^obtobre 1882, aprds lo touugo on question, ot on d^olururit soulonioat 
qu'il abandonnuit la dito bargo " Jtaoul " qu'il dtJtJlara alors, spulonicnt, avoir 
aohctdo du ddfondour, uiaiH n'uvoir pas paydo ; 

CoDsiddrant quo lo d<3fondcur n'a pas prouvtf son pliiidoyer of sp^oialomont 
«etto partio <Je son plaidoyor duns laquello il all6guo qu'il <5tait ii lu ooniiaiBsanoe 
do la demandorc&so quo lo d(5fondcur n'avait auoun intdrOt dans la navigation dfe 
la dho barge ^nqx 6poque8 mcntionnt'os dans lo couipto exhibit No. 1 de la 
demandcrcsso ; 

CoDsiddrant quo la dcmandere^so i^ piouvd les allegations do sa demando. 

La cour ronvoie la dito ddtcDSo du dciondour ct lo condnnino ik payor & la 
demandcrcsso la dito soniin$Mfe 8100.50, avoc int<>r6t du 20 ootobro 1882 jour 
d'assignation, ct tos ddpefiis distraits ii Mtroa. Guouard ot McGibbon, avooats de 
ladcmandorofiso. ',^ ' 

En rdvjflioal'a^pclantoita Ics autoritesjsuivantes: 
, Abbo/s Law of Merchant 8hippinL',;12c Edit., p. 20, §4; §5 ; Dowling & 
I^Ian^'sRop., vol. 9 p. 871. '\ Jugcmout c^firmlS. • 

\ Girouardfit McGibbon, avooats du dcniii^uur intinic. "^ / 

,' Lajtamme, Huntington, Laflumme et Richard, avooixt-i da d^foni^ur appelant. 



/ 



/■ 



COUR DE REVISION. 

MONTREAL, 30 MAI 1885. 

Coram Siootte, JettI:, Mathiec, J.J. 

PHILIPPE S.^ROSS et al., in-qualM, 

DKUA.Nuinns-AppiLANTS ; 
vs. 



ADOLPHE FOJjITAINE. 

DirK.<(DKDR-IllTIlli, 

Joai :— Que lorsque das actions ont 6tu souscrites nn fonds capita) d'une compagDie & un 
J* .»» „«...>„ j..»« .,_ j:'.!.!-.. _..».. 1..! _... ,^ jjj^ compagoie a goo 

pris naiasaace daos le 



de ses agents, daiUs un district autre que colui o'u la dite compagaie a goo 
d aSiiites^ la cause d'adtion est ceasee AToir pi ' ' ' ' 



bureau 

lieu oil les dites actions ont £t6 souscrites ; 

Que Iflirsque le consentement du dubiteur a 6t6 donn6 dans un distric^et celui de 

la compagnie dans un autre, touto la cauqe d'action n'a pas origin^ dans 

le district oii la dite compagnie a son bureau d'affaires- (Art. 34 G. P. 0.) 

La cour, aprds avoit^jkndu Ics parties surle nitrite de I'exoeption ddcliaa- 



I;. 



.v-\ 









■J. 



i ^ yr^-^-:.w:'W^'f '■■■', ^v 



20a 



coufl DK iiiivrsroN, issfl. 



district do ftloo 1 „tl'f,^" •'"'"'^;; -'"• -J" '• -"'PKHie d.n, la 
ea fait ct bJH^^i t j;;./ «-P»- <i«^eli„atoiro du' ddfeadcur o.t prouvdc' 

du ddfcndeu ot r vo^,:''l"' '•^'™'?' ' **''«• ^'''R-"'" «» St. Joan, av^at. 

tribunal oo„.;6lr ''"" •"*'"""• ^'■'^'"^'''' ' ^ P«-'«'' <'«"nl lo 

Autorir<j8du dufondour:-- 1^ 

2 Log. NowM, p. 93. ' f 

2 Ddo. Cour d'Appol, p. no ' ' . ' 

Gault&l}ertr„ad.24L:atp9/'*- ^ . ^ ' 

Warrcu & Kay otal,.6L. 0.11%. 492 

Jackson c al., (ft Coxworthy 12 L C it b 41fl < 

Gault ot al, „t WriKheet al . 13 L C T f ■ «n 
Connolly & B..„n,«eJ, 1 ^p J de Qu/bilo'^n V ' 
Autorit<$« dos demandeurs-- / ' ^' ^' ' 

™S» on Joint Stock Cos., p. 34 

Welch M. Baker, 01 L. C J n 97 ' * 

Foran.C;aP.;artfii,nc^&'^: X.^^^<:^^^^ „ 

Labour de J^,isi09 a unanimement maintenu rexccption d^linataire. 
Church, Orphan, EM et Nirlnll. «„. . j ^ Jngemcnt confirm^. 
J'aanii^lo'Jv, ' f ^'«'o««, avooats dos doniandeuw appelants. 



t» . y»»<;/» f^/ St , ,r„j„^ ^y^aati Ju dc'fcuJeur inrimfl. 



Vj 




coun supiSrikurr, me. 



29» 



qOUU aUPljRIKURK, 1886. ' 

HTE HOJIOhAHTiqUK, MAI I8II0. 

Prdwnt; rilon. Jug« Brlanobm. 

OHB. T. DB UUNTIUNV, 

«c DiMiiimioii ; 

»l. 

^ K, LEF. DKllKLLErEOlLLB it *t., 

IT 

JOSEPH 0. TUROEON, 



w 



DiMAHi^ca iir aAiAHrur ^ 



WILFRED 0UMA8, 



DlriNDiua iii sabantii. 
Jcot : 10. Qu« du moment qu'un. •ocl6t6 durocU eit diuoute fun dei woei«t n'.drolt 
/ de pcrotToIr dM d«bit<un de l'«noie«n* loolitA qu« » moitl6 dei'deitM : 
a«. Que iU-un d«i Maooi«i |wrfoU toute U dette et donne une quitUnce(«u Idfibl- 
tour, 1 autre Miooi« a droit d'Ignorer oette qultUnce et de forcer wUmtLt de 
lul payer la part, mfime par I'ex6cution de ici meublee. 
P.B coaiAM :-Lo dix-huit fdvrior im, I. dcinandeur on I. priJaente oanra 
a <JUS coDdamnd por la Cour do Circuit, H Montrduj, daos una oauM No. 14068 
dans laquolle loB prdmnU ddrendeura <S(iiient domandour* oontro 0<J«aire Chnr- 
bonnoauct al, ot ic present domandour, tienwiai.i, A payer on « quaJitd de 
tiira-Mwl, aux demandouni dans la dite cause, (ies' ddfendours en oette cause) 
lasommo de $109.10, savoir, tout lo niontont portd au bref do saisic-arr«t 
aprds jugement ^mm6 dans b dite cause aveo iotdrCt sur 182.60, A oownter da 
2 jnnvior 1877i 

Le 22 juillot 1879, Ics ddfondours ont fait iSmanor uu bref d'ex«$cution contra 

lesmcubles du dit tiers-saisi, lo domandour, en satisfaction de oe jugenient. 

adreB8<J H I'huissier David Prud'hommo. * '- 

Lliuissior Prud'hommo procdda 4 saisir en vortu de oe bref k ddflut par lo 

tiors-saisi (lo demandeur) do lui payer 163.94. Cette saiaie a 6t6 tuspendue 

par uno opposition de la port du dit tierssaisi (le domandour) . 

^:^lus tard oetto opposition a 6ttf di«sontinu<Je, ot lea d^Sfendeurs, par I'ontremise 

.Kleurs avooats, Mfl. DcBellefeuillo ct Bonin, le 21 novembre 1883, ont fait 

dmaner un autre bref d'oxSoution centre Ies bions meubles du domandour (to 

tiers-saisi dans la dite cause), aveo ordro & I'huissici^ do ddduire sur le montnnt 

du jugeinent une somme de $63.90. 

^ L'huissier W. Dumas, charge do ce bref, a soisi ohci le tiers-saisi' (le demnn. 
dour) ,pour une somme de 174.86 lo 6 dicenibre ifess. ' -^ 

Le 17 ddcembre 1883, Ic demandeur (lo tiers-saisi) s'ost rendu i, Montreal et 
payaA J. 0. Turgeon, I'un des crdanoiors, la sommmo do $63.76, ^tant la 
Balance rodue sur le dit jugemenf , en i)rincipal, intdrSts et frais ; et en. outre il 
f!?n t ^T'^y "!^ rr^''''!f ^'° ! f""''°" ' «^ '-^ et alors ledit L. Turgeon. 



^ ^, »«fctiiHo ctTargcon, (Tftrarofdropar iorit au dithuissier 

Dumas d arrStor sos procddds sur I'cxdcution et d'on^aire rapport en Cour. 



\5f 



m 



■it 



\ . 



* \ 






cx)UR supftniBunifi, iWa. 









■"ifltt 



ItL uIh.,,.- , ' , "f J*'" Pf»""*"»"«^'l'»i^«' l'«'*lt charge 4a brof aMi,tt,|«„. 
f.«i|to«i.l. J;'^*^5 ^'J'*'^' **'-• «« '^^"•l'" 'I" «•» i.mir«uouu fl),rtftt..Mu tH^,Q,ont ftit A M 
4.0.Cg,o^'j!"«7''' ••'1^ q'»"»t"l»n"'Uidr«v,.n,.,tAcu.lof„i»«J'%llo«,o„u„t dubr«f,«t 
IW Da-... *••;'■''""•'" d«oontlj,u«r wiprocJJ.?. pour r..«iM moitirf tW r»fo,i.nt & lul-miytil*. 
V" *'« c«n,^,|««^c... lo l..,.loumi„: IH .|.ioo,„|,re 1883. jour fl„^ pour I. vonto 

I lmi«ler I>u#(>. ho m.idlt iV ,St, Jdr^m^ olict U) <U,iii«n.leur (lo .lit tUri.iiai»t) 
y proc<.Ja 4 !• re,,., do, otf.tn *,i,i, ot prdloY* an* .ouimo do «:J3, y oumpri. „ 
MM fr«i« Nur h d'u.) vonlo m m Mi(»n( 4'|2.«S. ♦< 1 

I'ur ,wtt netjon en oott« c..u,o._lo domiiidaur « plaint que lo. Wt0ktt^' 
«nt «in«i fuU prooddor 4 ooUo ve»t« duno nmvk parti.-, do h V^tJSii^ ^ 
* p»»Ut do io, bioriH mibiilor,., H«n4ca.|<o ni r iLon, malioiouMMiieiit oliltZlMt 
et d»n. un but l..r,„«lifl,|,|„ A .m, .lomioilo ot .,„ ,on ttb.«n<«^,,,!!5I*l|[ls 
•""»"'"^'^'«fn'U"X'5ip<)url»».oiumomodiquodo833. • ;t?Bp 

Qa'on BKlinant .iln-i Ion dc»li,i.dour«.ont, non-iouloinont l,tr W ft, domnn.rour 
dan, m>« wntim.u.t,, p,,,i, ,«n«..ro lui ont cau^ dcN dottiu,a«o. rOols d'.u-^olf de 
«,,000, on f;,is.»t ftijHi vijuilro poar U.I prir n.>«»inal do, bions-iniublo!i «p- 
|)«ru>tittnt au.dit deniundour v.ilnrit au luoitiR lu dito lommodc «2,f»00r'' 

Que lc>» douiiiiu;(oii kin-i couit<4 au doiiHndour, iant KkUiitjiiiloiiiont quo WJolLs 
taent, TOutd'au inoin, U mmvm do«4,00(»quo lo domauJiuf i'drort do reoouvrer 
dcH dtffon.l«ur.s crtiijojntoHioijt ot uolidiiiromoiit. 

L« ddfondour DoBollofcuillo a ripoa.k4 ootto aotioD por troii exooptioDs 
pcrcmptoiroR. , ' 

L'autro d^rAxr L. O. Turgeou, n'a dm rdpondu 4 oolto ao\ion, mait*d 
«ppol(5 00 gnsSunTo I'huiNsior Dumo». ^ 

Pur >a prciniur* oxonpti.m, lo ddfondHur DoHolleibuillo oIliRue: Que Ics 
ddfcndcurs apn\H nToir 6fS as^ooidi oommoavooats pratlqunnti. pei.dant quolquea 
antKifs ont dissout lour aooidtcJ lo 1 1 novooibre 1S79, oe dont il. out informd lo 
public auRsitOc par annonooH dana lus journam ; 

Qu'on doocmbro 1883, lo dummdour savait quo los ddfondouni avaiont depuis 
longtempu diswut lour dito «oci<5td ; Quo lo inandat qu'ila a'dtaient donnd Tun 
A I'autre on contractant s^widuS, ot Ics pouvoirs dcs aMooids d'agir pour la 8ocidt«5 
ont ceu6 par |a .Hssolution do iioci6t6 ot qu'on oonHdquouco au niou do ddoombre' 
188.3, lo ddfondour Torgcoa n'uvait aucuno qualitd pour rcoevoif <Ju doniandcttr 
J a"« codorniar'dovalt au ddfondL.ua^||i||kjji|lo 6u 4-ranoianne loAJtd 
DcBollefuuiUo l|^ui^con ; ^MMM '&S 

• Que partaut Joute quittance donnd JnpRKur Tnrji^e peut valoir 
quant 4 la part du ddfcndeur DoBullefeuiITe et quo co dernier dtait bicn fendd le 18 
ddocnibre 1883, 4 fuiro cxdcutcr lo jugcmont pour sa part etenfln que lo dodan- 
deur n'a centre lui aucun droit dWtioa pour lea causes mentionndes dan^ son 
40tid% 

Lg demandcur a r^pondu 4cotto action en persistant dans sa prdtcntibn que le 
a^rendeur Turgcon avait droit de percovoir du domandeur le montant ewtier en 

'^""J^ i"*®'^'* ^' '^^"'^ ^° I'cxdcution duiande dans la dito <8U8o 4 lu pcuHuite' 
^e ^pSSmfuuille et Turgcon. 




.*. 




m nv^tHimm^im. 



im 



L^lit iml(<iiiont 4Surueoii. OA ^iMlcrl«m.».iM... t...,.^;4 K.i>jii.^...it. . « \ Monaco 



•Ju^tlit 



t paloiHont 4 JurKfloii, oe (p| |c (ieni«n<iottr iitnoniit, t>«ll«1ltftulll« M T«ir *" 
njr-iril prN Jt^^ent .louiro |.. .|«nHi(ni«Hr Dw^orHiKriy', ct tOM d«U| ek ■- ^ 

.kmnnd»i.U'6idomlo... II .it«it au choiidu ddbiteu^ WfeMoDiigny do pyorAlW '*" 
^ ou 4 r.uir« do« .,rd«„ci^rN .i«l| ft.i««ient c^cutor oonjoinieniont, b'bwioI pu 4t<i 

pv^vcnu pdt Inn |M>uniiii(i!ii ijn |'„„ ,!',,„, . , ' ^ 

I. ^f"'"" ."«•"">■•"•••' I" 17 ddoombro iHflg, 11 ,•»! IIMr^ »i».A ri, d«^dlu iJo- 
Holbfounio ot rurRito,, ,m j.ig,.»oiit'quo o«i darnier. a,ai«M obt«..« oontrt. bj. 
p»r le p«i.„„ont quUcn n f«U A TurK«on. doBi II . produit U. qui«.ooo •! ««. |« 
J<(f«u<lt.ur l)«H«|lofcui||« dr.lt uai fondd le lendomdn. ,1 ftiire o*<k,uU* l« Juws- 
mont pour U rnoUi(i. ' ;* '^ 

•I<» prouvo .iUblit q«e I)«BollcfouilIo tt^nr^on o„t obtonu l« juK«moDi «» . 

quo-tionjonda«l I'exi^tonoo da lour i.h,MW ; qu* 1» di«wiutloo do woidt^ h .u^ 
ou en.utto, lo 1 1 .ovombro 1879, otlfjuo oo n'e.t qu'on 1863 qu*, l« br«f d'«A,a4 
ion, en v«rtu duquol te.J,ioii. nioublos du d<rinai>deur but M uhii. n'» 4t4 * 

. m.h<J que quatre .„, aprt«. |. dUe dlwlutioo do ^m, «voJrr.n novembre 

100.I. alOrH nufl In ilnmnitilnii. .w,.....! :i I 1 I ' . . . ^ * 



Monygnjr 

L D*ltol|». 
Ill* vt tiL 




1 



aM.J, .lorH quo lo domandour oonnni«,.it dopui» ,,u«!qut. moin, .ln»i qu'il i« 



di5ol.ro Iu..n.flmo dan« «a ddposition, quo I. dito .ooitfM *v»^ 6i6 diawute, et qu'l 

AM n '. " "°""" '•'"' '" •*" d-Jfondour TurgeoD <Stait .lor. V^moc\6 do M. Wil- 
tWd I r<J»08t, avco ioquel il teuait iTlora bureau oonimtf .vooni. 

L. quesdon eat done doaarolr ai le domandour, connaiHsant l» dito dii^lotira 
d. «H5.dt<J <Jtart jaatiflablo en loi do ppyor au dit d<5fondeur XjirgooD, ^ ik part 
rav«.aht A oo dernier, et ooUo du dit DpBollefeuillo dan. lo momtunt por^»w dif 
^or, et alon pnyunt ain.i au dit d6fondour Turgeon toute I. dito «)mn,e, il .'eat 
lib<$r<$ tant vi/i A-vi» I'uh quo, via-A-vU I'.utre. 

LytiolellOO do notreCode dublit un prinoipe Won oonno, o'e«tqni«la 

tolidantd ontro lea ordanoior., donno A ohaoun d'oux le droit d>xta,r rexWtloo' 

do 1 obligation on ontier ot d'en donnor «uittanoe au ddbifur."Jco prinoipeeal 

b-d aur uno flotion do droit qui 8uppo«,'quo !«» "aooids on oontrwtant «,Si,d. 

' Jj/Jr^ ot'pu .t.on oontrdro, a« «,nt donnda un m.ndat rd.iproquo pou^ 

.g^rer gdn^ralomont le. .ff.ite. do I. «M,idtd. -Mai. oo m.nd.t oe JpTr 1. di.J 

«lat,on do la «H,>dld, .Inai qu'il eat ol.i«,ment ddoLrd par I'.rtiol. 1897 quf 

^priBo oommeauit : '^U m.D4t ot le. pouvoir. do. .Mocida d'i«ir pour I. 

ndco«ia.ro do. opdrationa oonlmonodoa. Ndanmoina, tout ie qui eat V <r.rte 

r.ri'i^r" t f !.'• " .'^'' ~"''''' p*^"" '"«^'*' ^^ i'^ •«« •>•»-♦- ^ 

Beilofeu.lle & Turgeon d'agir roapeotivomont poaHa'^idt^ avait odsT di 
:Z 1879r " oxcoptd," dit I'artiolo, " , I'dgard dc. aotes qui so t «^a«it 
o^^iredo. opdration. oommoriode. " Cofto oxooption A la rd^io que loTeZo 

par Tuigoon de I. part de DeBdlefouillo dans la ordanoo ^ iHUonTu"; ' 
»uuondce.^iro,.a-unoopdr.tioa coa.u.,no^ T.V..„tion onH 2 L I 




• III 

I 



(' ia 



#! 



•. A ..■ 







■.^■.; .'t 



,■ t'- 






'■■:'W 



3S2 









couR supliRiEm«i:, im. 






,^.^ 



1 



^Moni Jri!'"' *'•'' I'f'^^^ "^ ?<'»''»'<; <^''«-o que lo jugomenl rendu avant la dissolution. II ne jKJUt 
EL dWhq?!'*^^*'*,'^"''^'''*" '^'""° P''"""<^'-o execution qui n'a puseu de suite, ot dont if 
feuilledt (A. j"? ,*^t=>»' plus question lors du pnicment fait pir le demundour ; il do s'agissnit alors 
'j.0.lTu«eon'^"°'^" ^'''ef d'ex<5Ctttion dmnno en novembrc 1883, quatro ana aprts la dissolu- 
1 et t)on de sociiJtd des crdanciers. 

^V. Furnas. Si I'on adoptait los prdtontioni du domandeur quant A sa maniAre d'appliquer 
I'csceptlpn dont il s'ai-it dan<i cot aftiolo, il faudrait dire quochaquofois'qu'une, 
80ci^t|3 s'est dissoutoapriis avoir obtenu un ou desjugements contreses d^biteurs 
ces jugements pourront Ctre colieotds pi.r auoua des as30oi.53 oomm^ si la sooieto 
n'eut pas oo«)-d d'exiater, sous prdtexte quo cctto collection est un acto qui est 
une suite neccssairc d'opdrations commencdes, 1 

Co n'est oertaipouient pus iu pnrtee que i'on doit donned A oette disposition du 
Code. Je CQmpro^drais que si un assooi^, avant la dissolution do.laisoci^te'dont 
il fait partiOjNfuisaiiyun actc ddpendant .d^ la socidtiS, coinme par Jxemple unc 
vente d'une chose quelcon que, dont la livmison Vaurait past«td faite Want Ia4is- 
solution, alors cet-asso6i6 pourrait valablemcMe donner suite H Top^Aition cqm- 
ipencde, en eflFectuaut B,^livraison de la chos^ veiidue, parce que la Loeidtd est 
litlc par la vente faite avai^t la dissolution. Duns oc cas, la livruisorf serait unc" 
suite ndcessaire d'uoo op«5r^.tion commencde. 'I 

On pent citer des cas i I'il^fini oil cette exception pent avoir son aj)plioation ; 
mais suivant inoi, cette cxcep^on ue peut avoir son application da(ns I'espOce 

■ ' , ' \ 

pit eosuite aux oas oH un tiers qijii contract(^ 



actueile. 

L'article 1900 du Code pourvvii; ousuue aux oas ou un tiers qi^. w...^..,;.,. 
avec un des associus ri'est pas affefetd pas la dissolution de la sooidtd ; o'est entrol 
autres lorsqu'il a contracts ^a bonttc foi.et tout en ignorant la dissojution de la I 
Booidtd avec laquclje il crpit contracter par I'entromise d'un associd. Get article 
a'cxprimcconime suit.- "U dissolution de la^ocidtd n'afTecte pasles droits 'do 
tiers qfti oontractentsubsAluemaient i^ec qUqu'un desassooies pour le coinpte 
de la s(icidtd, exceptd.danii les cas suivUts .i-io lorsqu'avis en est donnd confor- 
rndment 4 la loi ou aux usages dgi couim|rce. 2o lorsque I'opdi-ation es^de mau- 
. vaise foi, illdgalo ou autmnient en!^ll^c|le nullitd. f 

Dana I'esp^ce, la demanjlcuiP Savait quaja socidtd ^tait dii/so<ite, consdquem- 



ment il ne pput pas pi'dtehdre de bonne fotau point de vuolfoal, qu'en payant 
^ Turgeon il s'acquittait en^jersk socidte\©eBellcfeuiile et burgeon, lorsqu'il 
dcvait savoir que par la dissorlution de la BcicL.6 le mandat d{\ dit Turgeon avait 

dite socidfd^/ avaient aussi cessd 



pris fin, etqueses pouvo^r^ pour agir pout 

d'existec, -it 

A I'appui des prinoipesau^'j'ai exposds, je'«i(^ . 
Tronlong, de la socidtd, l!^^ p. 355, Nos sMseT, pt, 
Bddarride, des sooidtds comiiierciales, t. 1, ;f o%69! 



96. 



. Pour toutes ces raisons, je crois que le ddfenHeuV DeBeljefeuille n'dtait pas lid 
par le paiament fait au d^endeur Turgeon: qu|l Avait d^it d'ignorer ce paic- 
ment quflnt i^ la moitid lui revenant do laxliteWraWjqujildtaitconsdquement 
justifiable de faifc continuer les procedds sur la Wisfe quadt H cette moitid ; et 
comme derni^rc" consdquepee que I'actinn Un de^aryclLreat|inafV< " 



reatjmariTQpdi^n quant 



mL, 



dit ddfendebr DeBellefeuillc. 



CGUR SUP^RfEURE, 1886. 



• > 
303 



La premiere exception du <14fendour DoBcllofeuille est-.niaintonue a^ec Cl.«.. T. D» 
(l^ns et raction est en consdquenco dtfboutde quant liu dit DeBellcleuille aveo '^'""^'JK"^ 
d^pens diatraita dH.M. DeBellefeuille etBonin, avoonts du dit ddfondeur J>e- f'^- DeBelle- 
Bellefeuille. , feuille .fal. 

P/-rfDO«< cfc Jtfa/Aieu, avocats du dcmandeur. 

DeBellefeuille et Bonin, avocafs des ddfeadeurs DeBellefeuille. 



et 

JO. Turgeon 

ft 

W. Oumas. 



. I \\\ 



,^ COURT OF QUEEN'S BKNCH; 1886. 

: -f . MONTREAL, MAY 26X11,1886. 

Coram DoRiON, C. J., Monk, Tesbier, Cbobs & Babt, JJ. 

_ WILLIAM VENNOR, Sen. - . ---. 

.\ (Plaintiff' in the Court below), 

' ' ApPKLL4KT| 

THE LIKE ASSpCIATION OF SCOTLAND 
. {defendants in th* Court beloto), 

jy . * . Rkspondbnts. 

HJLD ;- That a bond in favor of a foreign Insurance Co. which is signed in this Province 
18 to be interpreted according to the law of the Piovlnce. ' 

That by. our la* where power is given to cancel a policy of Insurance on ■ 
accoant of non-payment of premium, that power must, oe exerciSedi before^ 
tender is made of the amount due. 
V. That tlie surrender value of a policy of insurance is everywhere the same' and 

i8^t .subject to an arbitrary decision of the. Company fixing it^at a less sum 
in.^ foreign country than that provided by the;condiiions ot the.policy. 

The declaration alleges: that\0. C. de la Chovrotiire insured his life for 
£1000 stg. on 3rd March, 1871, fot' an annuul premium of £50.8.4. fcto-. paya- 

^ ble quarterly on lijt February, Ma^r, August and Jfoven.bar. ; That on^'of the 
conditions of the policy was, that if t)ic premium was not paid within 21 days 
after due, the policy was void, but could be renewed within the year on payment 
by the insured,, of tf fine of two and one half per cent, for every month in arrear' 
That another condition of tlxe policy was, that it was indisputable after bein" 
five years in force. That a further condition of the policy was, that if all tlie 
premiums had been paid during five years, it should not become void By the 
non-payment of the premium within the 21 days of grace; but pjiyment of pre- 
mium could be made at any tim* during one year with above fine of two and 
one half per cent, per mouth. , 

That on the 7th January, 1876, the said policy was transferred to plaint^, and 
the transfer duly served upon defendants on the tenth of same month 

That qn 1st Febrjiary, 1877, the uflnual premiums on said policy wero re- 
duced to £37.16.4 stg. per annum equal to 8184.04 cuiTency, payable $46 01 
every three months as heretofore. ? 

That on 3rd May, 1877, a loan of £60 stg., with interest at she per cent., payable 
on 1st February every year, was made by defeudants to the said de la Chevro- 

-ttinrittitHAiimiff, under ^heganrapteff or ttrg-MTd policy which was given to- 
defendants, and has ever since remained in their possession. 



1- 



U 



^ ... 



in 



i< ! 



304 



COURT OP QUEEN«)S BENCli, 1886. 



Sen.""'"'"' Tlfat defendants had an ngcncy in Quebec, whore both plaintiff and de l« 

ThJufe ^'''^"°*'*™ '■''"''"''^' '*"'* ^•^'^y were in the habit of giving them notice of the 

Jlsaoclationof P'"'™'"'"*"''*! interest becoming duoj but in the full of 1882, defendants with- 

fieotland. drew their agency and did not notify plaintiffs as usual ; and by an oversight, due 

. to said want of notice, plaintiff failed and forgot to pay the premiums of 1st 

August and 1st November, 1882, and of 1st February, 1883, and all the interest 

due at the litter date on the above loan,— but all previous instalments had been 

regularly paid. 

TMJJ on a statement given to plaintiff by defendants of the whole amount due, 

^ the said plaintiff transmitted to defendants on 28th Marchr 1873, the sum of 

$173.70, as acknowledged by them by letter on the next day, and the defendants 

kept the amount pending the decision of the Company as to the revival of the 

, r policy, and that in the mean time de la Chevrotiire complied with a request 

made by the defendants, to be examined by a physician who reported in his 

favor. t Ji 

. , ,, ,..-». ./ . . . ;_ -■.«■.• 

I^nd interest. 



That since then, plaintiff has t/endered and paid every pf^ai 
when becoming due. / ^** *., 

That defendants, iifVreach oi|d violation of the coveii^j^gStiDg bet^veen 
them, have cancelled the policy, refused to revive it, and feive inbred to p^intiff 
a certain suna as representing the amount due on said policy, after deduction of 
the loan, which he refused to accept. 

By, the conclusions, plaintiff prays acte of his fender and deposit in Court: 
1st, of a cheque of the Compariy defendants, for $219.71, and sent to him by 
them as, representing the full amount of premiums, interest and fines paid to them 
by plaiLtiff until 1st May, 1883 ; 2o of a sum^f $156.35 in cash, representing 
all amounts of premium, fines and interest due on policy and loan by plaintiff 
from said last date, and which iWosums had abready been tendered, as appear by 
deeds, at each instalment due, iind that the defendants be condemned and bound 
under the terms of their policy to pay to the plaintiff, after the death of de la 
•Chevroti^re, the sum of £1,000 stg., less the amount of>e loan,„provided plain- 
tiff pays premium and interest, the whole aooOlrding to terms of policy and loan. 

PLEAS., 

The first plea of defendants a lieges: . / * 

That at the time they made t) plaintiff the Joan of sixty pounds sterling, they 
signed the following " Bond and Assignment in security," in virtue \f^ which 
since the plaintiff had failed to pky the interrat on it when due, or withint^enty- 
one days thereafter, the Association defendants were empowered without previous 
notice to hold the Policy of Insiiranoe as surrendered for the ordinary office value 
at the time. / 

"We, Octave Chavigny del Chevrotidre, of Quebec, Caiiada, Clerk to the 
Legislative Assembly, and WilUam Vennor, senior, of the same place, bui^ess, 
having borrowed from the Life Association of Scotland, the sum of sixty pounds 
sterling, do hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and successors whom- 
SQpver, to repay the said sum to the said Association, at their office » Montreal, 



;^0irttBe first day of February, TST^wItEl^t^^isrmore of liqui 




^^ 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



305 



our riSSdS ?.f '"'^^ *^'*''" ^•''^''^"^ ^° '* Chevroti^^rc, and all 

wifhnT ^"^^ ^'"' "''° "»° '"'-^ Association aic hereby empowered 

Z f„T ^ ""^ "®"* ''''"" "•'^••""f •'^ »'•« time ; aod in the event of 

0^ fa.1 ng;)^«„^ t.me hereafter to pay the pro„,iums becoming due on hTsaid ' ' 

Wtn ::^, t," T ^' '""-^ '-''''^^"'y - 'f this'As4:ment h^ 
bQ/ been granted-the Assocmtion being ia no way bou^d to keep up the same 

In wuness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and sen la this tlird dl;. 

of 3Iayj one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. ^ 

- Signed, sealed and delivered 

in the presence of. , 

IJ. A. Roinhnrdt, 
Clerk, Quebec, 
Alfred Rivcrin, 
Clerk, Quebec, 

l-ebruary, 1883, nor'with.n 21 days, the defendants held the .ame Policy as 
hevr, ,'?."' ''"'' "''^'^'^ P'-tiffandoffered to p«y.he amount i/ 

or VIZ., i.127 12.5.stg., less the amount due, to wit : £G1.16.4 stg., leaving a 
balance of £65. 6.5 stg. equal to $320.33 tendered on 11th Auou^t 883 W 
the ministry of K. G. Meredith, N. P. . - ° ' ' ^ 

That on the 28.h of March, 1883, the plaintiff admitting that the Policy was 
forfeited and had lapsed, appHed for a reviv/d of the same" and tranfm Id" 
defendants .he sum of $219.71, representing all amount, due to said date b 
premmms and fines on policy and of interest and fiues on loan, an^alsQ trans- 
mitted certificate of the state of de la Chevrotiere's health &c 1 

That the Directors of the Company, in the exercisi of their discretion ' 
refused to revive the policy, and they again tendered back to plaintit the atovc 
stated amount whjph had been previously refused by him f 

Wherefore de%d«lits renew their said tender and pray note of^its deposit 
and pray that the policy be declared lapsed and no «ore in existen e, an7 S 
plaintiff's action be dismissed. 

eomH^r TTt: '' T"'^?; *'' *^'-'°^ «^ 'he poS, the second and seZk 
eondmonscf .which read as follows: 2o. If any preSimu, be not paid within 



^OcT. DE LA CHEVROTlilRE (seal) 
Wsi. VENxXOU, Sa. (seal). ^ 






■ fP 



4 > 



tin 
if 



V i.^ 



306 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



W. Venno 

■en. aiid 

The Life 

Association 

«ScoUand. 



fWenty-onc days after the stipulated date of payment, the policy, except in the 
event of deatb,^hall be void, but it may bo renewed within one year, on evidence 



•" 



o( health to the satisfaction of the direotorrf and on payment along with the 
, f.reiniums^f a fine of two and a half per cenf. thereon for every month elapsed 
since the stipulated date. 

" 7th condition.— After five years, and if the full premiums have been paid, the 
policy shall not bo void (condition 11) by non-payment of the premium within 
twenty-one days after the stipulated date, but shall remain in force even in the 
event of death provi.led payment of the premium be mndo within one year, from 
the stipulated date along with a Bno of two and a lialf per cent, thereon for every 
month elapsed since that date. " 

That the above conditions are qualified by and subject to the prospectus of 
thecompany, issued for the year of said jSolicy, 1871, which reiterates the above 
conditions but add to them the proviso that this privilege does notextend to policies 
chargeable with any debt to the association for unpaid portions of ptpmium or 
otherwise. 

That the policy in question is charged with such a debt, that the premium 
due on 1st August'and November, 1882, and on Ist February, 1883, nor within 
- 21 days thereafter, were not paid, and therefore the Policy became null and void, 
and was declared surrendered. By their conclusions the defendants tendered 
to plaintiff the amount they considered due under said surrendered policy, to 
wit: $320,33 praying acte of the deposit, and further prayed as in above first 
plea. , 

3o Defense en farts. 

The issue being joined and closed, the following judgmont was rencjifed in 
:the Superior Court by the Hon. Mr. Justice Papineau. 
^" La Cour, apr^s avoir entendu les parties par leurs procurcurs respectifs sur 
le m^rite de la pr^sente eausc, examind la procddure, les pieces au dossier et la 
preuve faite,*et d^lib^rd : 

Owisiddrant que k demandeur oessionnaire de la police No. 33,932 A. eman^c 
lo trois mars 1871, de la compagnie d^fenderesse, sur la vie du aomm^ Octave 
Chavigny de la Chevrotidre, a poursuivi la d^fenderesse jpour faire declarer que 
la dite police n'a pas et4 parfaite et n'avait pas pu gtre terminde par la d^fen- 
deresse, H d^fant de paiement par lui, et par I'assur^, de trois versements 
tnmestriels de la prime due en vertu de la dite police, mais r^duite, par le par- 
tage et attribuUon auz assures de la part afferent a chacun dans les b^n^fioes 
r^ulisds. 

Consid^rant quele demandeur alldgue avoir emprnnt6 de lacottipagnie ddfen- 
deressc, coojointement aveo le dit Chavigny de la Ghevrotidre, le ou vers le trois 
mai 1877, une somme de soixantb louis sterlings, remboursable suivant la con- 
tention, au taut de six pour cent I'an, payable a^ premier de fevrier ohaque 
aonAj, et que pour garantio du paiement de cette somme et des int^rdts, la dite 
police avait ^td remise en la possession de la defeiideresse ; * '" 

Considdrant que la ddfenderesse plaide.,que low du , dit ^mpruntj le deman- 
diHir etledUaaBardont — -i-^-^." ...... f 



!Sa » iaJiLditfl4 > oIi c e^A4a .4 l4f«adwwB9..eBm iB »86wt ^dB 



embot^rsement de la somme et de I'Jht6rat au bureau de la oompagnie ddfende 



/ 



lit 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 18f?«. 



307 



•deux mf^roFifes, dconsiJorter la dito nnli! 'nt.mnt.on prealablo aux A«ociatiooor 

valour ordinair; au tc. ^ t, il'^t """" "'"'^° (^-rendered) pour sa ^'=''"'""'- 

'i^te n'ont pas .e. pa,.s aCSril et ' 1 f"^' ^*"« '^-•^^- 
«nt «uivi,mal8^u.i,8o„t 6t6 efforts ITS v!-' ""' '*>«''"?» Jo«r« qui 

Ja d^fcnderes Jd'Edi„bu^\„ Csse e, !ff ;'^'" '" ''""^" ''^ •^''«°"°° "« 
f cision du dit bureau eU n;i,3 Ireffl T''° "" '^"""''^"' '^P''^" '^ 
la valeur do la dite police, dtablie pari W ^ . TlT'' '''' '° "•«°»'«'* ^e 
approuVde par'le bureau d^ d ecteuLTpd f d^^fenderesse, A Montreal, et 
ofl^ au.J au deu,a„deur par tTi^r d^' t\ ^ir ^ T' ^'^ 
Considdrant que le deuiandeur c«f n.„l> j"'*' ^*'«""^ "ot^'re public ; 

ddfeuderesse a prouv. so ^ ZoT tT Lffi" 7 "^ P^'*""*'°''« «* 'l"^ '« 
La Hmii. ^^„i 1 ,. f""'""J°'^ «' '» suffisance do ces offrcs 

^. Une autre somme de «2iq 7t ^- • ^ ' "'-"'^'' » 

le montant sus-mentionnd de la vlleur i^ la di 't "'''' "" '^'^'^'"^°" "«» 
defenses, et renvoie I'actlon d^dl^rdlr Ive' /; "'' T'^' '''''^' ^'^'^ '«" 
Horris, avooat de la ddfenderesC" d^Pen«, distraits i Mtre. JT. L. 

• that power niust b^ exereLd^fo^^^e 1*''^ "' T*' '" «'^«» 'o """''^W 
oaBe>a, „,ade before the ^ wrtlted '' " ""f"' ^''^ ^^'-^^^ '« t^" 

teosion of the Compauy that he s„rf nt I' t*^ '''^'^ """^ff^'^- The pre- 
giving in Cauada i L thc^ iZt g^tud ^ ' f "^" '^"' '«' ^^"-^ 
has no' right to makesueh an a bitr^ry ^r a„^ ' .? "^°""'^'^' the Company 

Douire Joseph & Dandurand, attorneys for appelllnt 

^AnZ.iforr«, attorney for respondents. "^P*"""*-, . ; ^ ^ 



■;>». 



:% 



m 



'\n 



ilfc. 






■\ 



308 



OOUR DK REVISION, 188fi. 



v^ 



COUR I>E I{f<:VISIOX. 

AlONinEAL, 12 JUI.V 1880. 
ALEX. OUIMftT, 



Dd!u 



ANDIUR ; 



V8. 






LfiOX MEXARD, 

^ \ • DcrENDECR. 

Jnofe :— Que (Inns nn priJt i\ IntortU le biinofice <lu termo est, censd «tipul6 en faveur des 
(Iciix parties coiitractiintca ; qu'en consi'quenco, Teiiiprun'teur ne peut 
obligor le creancicr ik reeevoir le paiemcfflt 'do sa cr6anoe Ayiat ucheanco. 
(art. lOOl. 0. C.) 

Lo dcmamleur a poursuivi le ddTundour en cette oimso pour le recouvrenncDt 
d'uDO spnimo de trois cent quatrc-vingt-iino piastres et vingt-ncuf cents, ca 
jertu dedcu.T notes d'obligation portant int(k<i}r, Tunc ii ncuf pour cent et I'autro 
douzc pour cent, iivec hypQtlief|UC ; 

Le d($icnd< ur a plaidt^ en rC'sunid il cottc action, que les deux actes mention- 
n«Ss plus linut iivuient otd conscntis" par lui an dcmandeur, tnais que lor.s dp 
I'ihstitutiou ilo ccttc notion, ot lon^tcmps iiupuravant, ii ne lui dcvoit rien. 

Que d'npiis I'articlc 1091 lo ternie est toujours pr<jsumtS stipule on faveur du 
d^biteur, \ moins do conditions contrairci ; - 

Qu'en con c'qucucc, avnnt I'cxpiration du d«J!ai mcntionniS dans les deux 
obli<j;ation.«, ic dofendeur a fnit au dcninndeur des offres r«5elTe.", coiiformdment A 
laloi ctf auxstituts do cettc province, 35 Vict., chap. 5, et 36 Vict., chap. 14, ct 
a d6pof6 suivant la loi, pour lo demandcur, la sommodo trois cent cinquuntc- 
huit piastres ct dix cents, etnnt Ic montant en tier, en cupitul et intdrflt qu'il 
detrait au demandcur en vcrtu dcs do)ix obligations, ct cola eu date du treizc 
d^ccmbro niil huit contquntre-vingt-trois.^ 

Aufloritds du dufendeur appolnnt, (Bu revision. 

4 Marcadc?, p. 4S0, No. 575, ct note 2. 

25 JJemoloiiIbo, No. 628. 

Code P. C. vol. 2, art. 772, p. 205. 

Derviau^Cronzilhac, pp. 491 et 492. " 

Carrd etChauvcau, vol. 6, p. 305. ' 

Loys^au, livre 5, eh. 9, No. 19 et suivants. 

2 Larombit-re, Theorio dcs obIii,'ations sur art. 1187, p. 480, No. 3. 

Pothier,No. 2.3.3, p. 98, voL 1 (scconde edition). . . *, - 

Autorites de i'ltttiniO : 

17 Laurent, art, 116^^ G N^ 4 Aubry & Rau, p. 90; 11 Duranton, ^o. 
1051J, et suivant. J 




jiifam et Dnhamd, avoents de rappdaiit. 
E. Iiiicicof, avocat de rintinie. 



Jugoment con&riiKS./ 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 



309 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886. 

MONTREAL, MAY JBtii, 1«86. 

Present, DoBio.t, C. J., Monk, Tessieb, Cross and Baby, J.J. 

No. 06. 

• ■ ■ '.f' 

■ ^ WILLIAM DUDLEY, BT AL. "• ' 

(I'laintiff't in the Court beloic), 

ArPILLAMTS; 

WILLIAM DARLING 
^ _ ! ^- (D^/endant in the Court b4l(m}f 

H.LD:-Thal where •debtor ha. bill, or acco»nt. rendered to him, .bowing cert;in 

amounu a. due bjr him lo 1.1. creditor., and remit, .urn. of money from time to 

^ time on account of the amount claimed, without questioning the correctne.. ot 

■uch^accounU, he thereby .cquie.ce. in the .atae, and cannot afterward, dispute 

The plaintiffs hj their declaration alleged inter alia :— 

e ?"* Vo?i"""^'"'"' '" *^"S'""'^' William1)udle>, now deceased, on the 8th 
of May, 1876, executed a deed poll, conveying to the present plaiotiffs all his 
intemt in the busincas carried on by him, including all matters^conncoted 
therewith, with power to control and manage all his estate and effects as well as 
to continue and manage all the matters arising out of this his said business 

That the said deed was by the last will of the said Wm. Dudley, bearin.? even 
date therewith, fully confirmedjand said plaintiffs named executors and trustees 
* .fw,!! "f °°Pt«*^ ""Oh appointment, and thereafter, from thp death of the. ' 
^*aid Wilham Dudley, which oocurrcd on the 27th February, 1876, wore vested 
with his estate and have since administered the sai^c, and arc now entitled to 
demand and recover the sums of money demanded by this action 

That at the time of the death of the said William Dudley, the defendant was 
indebted to him in the sum of £7,4Q6.12.4. as per accounte rendered by plain- 
tiffs from time to time, and upon which the s^d defendant had paid at different 
dates divers sums down to the Ist June, 1881, leaving a balance due at the end 
of said yearof £744.9.11, which sum was due at the date of the institution of 
the action. 

<And the said plaintiffs specially allege that the transactions between the 
■ saiUJatoWilham Dudley and defendant, or the firms which he now represents 
originatedflo fur back as the year 1870, when arrangements wer« made that 
the said Wittiiwa Dudley should sell and deliver to the said firm,- such goods, 
wares and merclla^ues as they Aould rejiuire^ and shouldorder at the priced 
then current, and tKintef«8t On all overdue kqpounts should be charged and ' 

^ paid at the^rate of seTcn^w^one half (7J) pe{cent. per annum, th^ same to 
include aU fee, and commthiims, to which the said William Dudley or his 

" reprtsgntaUves might be entid^or services rendered ta th, drf^n^^ant nn 

DlOXMBBB, Vol,, 30— No! 12 



7W 



■J^ 



I 



■ " '■■■■ —■-■ — '■— I ! _ ■ -Ill— 1 



R-^^fjm^ 



810 



COUBT OF QUEENS BENCH, 1886.' 



» W. budl. V, 
el. *l ' 
and 
W. Oviinr 



his apont., and which rate was the then ourr,»t rnte, and which sold dofeo. 
dant reoogniiod and followed au the bunine^ :*rwnpomeot agreed upon, and 
always recogniaed and aoted upon from th.,;vc«r^O down to the 31it De- 
" comber, 1881." "^ X ' 

The plaintiff* Inatitutedtbia action for .aid balance, setting up specially the 
rcndenngof the accounts and their acceptance and the payments made thereon, 
and alleging a promise to psy the baW, also set up and alleged the indebted- 
ness by the defendant under the oFSfnary demand in assumpsit, and a long 
senes of dcnhngs «„d statements of accounts rendered and accepted, and which 
defcndont .., specific terms promised to pay within a fixed term, and prayed 
judgment for the ollegod balance. 

The defendant pleaded by . di/en,e en droif upoft which a hearing was had 
on the 12th March, 188.3, and therein t^-euve avanifaire droit was ordered. 

A second plea was filed setting up that under the deed poll and will invoked 
the plaintiffs had no right of action. 

The third plea alleged that no goods were sold or delivered to the defendant 
by Wm. Dudley. 

; The fourth plea was to the effect that the transaction referred to in the de- 
claration were not between William Darling, defendant, and said Dudley, but * 
between him and Wm. and Thomas Darling, then doing business at Montreal 
and that charges were made in the account produced which were not justified by 
the allegations of the declaration, to wit, for commission upon the purchase and 
shipment of the goods referred to in the claim, and that proper audits had not 
been given for sums transmitted on account, and that no discount had been 
allowed /or /rom;,< ca»h payment^, according to the custom of trade, and that 
no sum was duo by the defendant. 

That plaintiffs in their quality never were the agents of the defendants or 
performed services for him, and was not entitled to make or continue thechaWe 
for interest as charged, and that there was never any formal admission of any 
balance as claimed by the plaintiffs. . ' ' 

Upon the issues as joined the parties went to proof. ' 

The plaintiff examined the defendant upon interrogatories sur faits et articles - 
and closed his enqufite-in-ohief upon his answers thereto. ' 

The case was heard by Mr. Justice Mathieu who, on the 8th July. 1884 ren- 
dered judgment dismissing plaintiffs' action on the ground, as will be seen from 
the «,««rfrfr«n<, of the judgment, thatbythe agreement set up by the plaintiffs • 
themselves in their declaration, the interest of 7J per cent, ias to include .1 
commissions, etc. The judgment was in terms following : 
La Cour aprte, etc. 

Consid^rant que lesdemandeursalldguent dans leur declaration que le d^fen- * 
deur 8 etait oblig<5 au payement de rint^rfit sur toute avance faite au taux de U 
p. c., et que oet int^rSt devait comprcndre tons frais de commission • -^ 
Considtfrant que ledefendeuradmetcette convention; ' 

Consid^rantquemalgre cette convention formelle, les demandeurs chargent 

• ' ■ . ■ '' -: I 



COURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 1886. 



311 



B«r lo. baUnoe. due« quoiqu'll d> .it pa. de coonntlon fo^mell. A crt Jr 

.u d^fe„d.uPoh.rKe.nk le mooUnt do cca oomn.iMio„. n'ct p« «uffis.„t «n. 

e .Bontant deco. commwmons qui nuivant une convootion formollo .fl<JguJ« L 

le. demandeur. eux-n.0n.e8 dovait fitro compriao dan. le. intdrfit. qui aont cl.argj. ; 

toMiddrant que le monUnt dea oommisaiona aiaai ch.rgd par lea domandeur. 

Huffisant pour couvnr 1. balance rdolan,^e du d<$fendeur par lo. dita deman- 

^^Con.id<Jrant quo pour cea raiaons lea defense, du dit d<5fendeur sent bien fon. 

dea^'dr dr.:di:"'"""' '" '"" '''^•"-' •* • ""'^^^ «» --• ••-«- 

thl^h" r""! "57 '''*' P'*""* 'P*^"' """" "'^'°- The appellant aubmitted 
Imt bt °"" " '"'"""'* ''^ theoorreapondenee and, eddenoe would 

& '^Ta ""'f 'V.^^ V*' '"*" ^'"'*'" ^"•"'^y "•» »»>« «"» of Wm. Darling 
fha^-n!? r . '"'"i"""*"- '^"•n^en.enu, whereby the former waa to pur 

ntlT. /T /' I^"' ^"""« * ^'- °"»«'" g~><^« »« ^tey might be re- 

hadtettr* »T^'^' *"*'* '""'""'* ^'"'*f™"' -■'^ datetheaeatatemeata 
1^!k " /"** received, and payments made thereon from time to 
ond^l? •'»*»'°; « 7"y 'houaat^d pounds, without question aa to the terma or 

to thfr.T t""' lo' ''"*^"«'''«'» orrangementa were being carried on up 
„i 1 •. ?™t'' '^^^' ''^''' "^'"^ *'•"« '•>« »'<» William Dudley died 
he dtd'l/ T*'m? ■; "i" "P-*-"^''-. '-"^ POBseaaion of hi. eatateVndl; 

E 5 W™ n r 'i r T " *'"'"•""' '"^ ^^ "•" '»«''»<^'">» "P«'«"ting th" 
flrmofWm.Darhng& Co. of £7,406. 12.4, e "» 

of ^'d,*f ' ""W account was virtually closed aa to the purchaae and ahipment 

If^ 187. 1 '"*^°"'^P"'^''*"«"''«^"«^ that date waa in 
^ March, 1876 to the amount qf £2J.14.2, aa appear, by the annual aUtement 
,^enden.l to the defendant, on the 31st December" 1876. and from tha date h 
/ annual statement wa. rendered and received without ^ny quoation aa to Terma 

^r objection of any kind, and r^mittancea made from iime to tim^unt tl 

877::'/'*!? 'T«:^"'^ i-to.*he hands onhrpiri 

J JtrJil! '" ^^^^ *" ^^**-^-" '^o^ntm.i for in thia cauae. 

That thea« payments were made on the annual statement, rendered every year 

8ettlemefat,aa shewn by the correspondence between the partiea. Inalilaof 
•«l the Mooani or of the amoant demanded. / . -----t 



W. Dudlar 

•tal. 

•ad 

W. Oarllog. 



; I 



(f I' 
'' if 



I 



'1' 






312 



COUKT OF QUEKNH IIEXCJI, 1888. 



W.^pudUy, ^|„t upon , proti^in^ dcihiind hf plaintiff for a «»tlonjonl •ftcr a delay 

vr oUrlin. f *"**"' of nearly 6fa ycnr., th« dcfondant, w Uto n. the 21»th Jununry, 1880, 

»• in • lotlor retniitinK £250 on aocouin, .ay* :_<• W. lu,vo no d..ubt w« will 

" clfMio the wholo oiutK-r thin imion, am] will rmnit you a;.'>iin at an corly dale." 

^ Again in reply to a duinand for MVttltjuient by plaintiff^ and a oouipUint 

thiit their lotturn were not an»wert;d, iho dofundunt on the 4th Mwch', IHHO, 

«. enclosing £300, writoi : " Wo rcgict to notice that you arc net H.ai»|lud with 

" our oorroiifx.ndonoo boo<«oHo it i» vajiue an^ doea not meet your fiowa, we 

I' auppoBO it i« that part of it in which nfo nny that \w will oI..m tho wholo 

"matter ihii ieaion, wo now add ta IIiIh that it will -be done at tho eorlioit 

'"jlato poMible." 

^ That up to tho L'lth Doocnibor, 1880, difondant had ^ive^^o intimation to 

plaintiflf'a that ho disputed any p«rt of thoif ucoount„it«doroti,^i(f on which ho 
bad boon reoiittin;? money for many yearn, upon aiateate'nta rebdcrttl cveW year, 
on which date tho defendant writoa lo the ottortJm of plaintiffs, in >fhoae 
hands the matter had been placed for adjualmentA *^Wu have pur lettera of 
" the 25th October and 18th December, and wo b«fe v>,»uy that the principal 
'« sum duo to tho lute Wm. Dudley bos Ijecn more than paid, and the only 
" matter for settlement is the amount of inttreit to wliio'h tho Executors are 
" entifled to for their forbcaraneo. They eun make up their' statement of 
"account fortho goods furnished to ifa with commiuion acWerf, ereditinB us 
" with tht remittances we have madtJi^^od adding intoront «t iho usual rate be- 
" tween traders, and if any balance itqljie we will pay it, * * ♦•• 

To this a reply was sent to defondnnt on 13th January. " We have 
"received yours of tho 2Uh December. * ♦ * You h«vo 

" received from tho late Mr. budley's trustees, at rogttlor periods since his 
" death, statements of acoouiit shewing the balance duo At tho respective dates 
" of the same, and you have "at various times made remittunces oh accoHnt bf 
" and in reduction of such balances. We arc therefore at" a loss to understand 
" how any additional statements can bo useful for the purpose of iuferming you 
" of tho amount of your present indebtedness." 

That this was the first intimation given by defendant of any objections to tho 
business Wrangement which ha<|*oen carried on for ten years, andVaynient» 
made during the whole of th^t time without a single complaint. \ \\ 

That on the 20th of May, 1881, the defendant remitted another sum of^O 
on accdudt of balance, and on 20th August following, ho states for the first and 
only time, his only ground of complaint, he says:— "Tou ask us about the 
"claim of the estate of the late Wm. Dudley, omong other causes of complaint 
"there is tlio rate of interest, 7J per cent. If made up at 5 per cent, we 
"think the whole would be found to be paid, * * *" Xhen 
follows an offer to examine the accounts if tho Trustees are satisfied with 5 per 
c^nt. 

That the only complaint made at this late date was as to the rate of interest. 
There had been none as to the price of tho goods or the rate of eommUnon 



\ 






M 



/ 



CDUnr OF QUKBN'8 BENCH, 1886. 






•ohtrpd fbr dbbarMOMnU nsd* knd MrvioM parrormad by Dudley fbr d«rendtlil, 
•nd ihia wm tho mora imporUot, aa tha judKoant randarad againat dafandant 
waa made to turn upoo a pratondad right to dafandaDU,' to rtduM Iho auni 
fllaimod bjr auma chargad aa oooimiaaioo and intoraat upon the paymanta ainca 
1870 Moruad. 

In aupport of tha, propoiition that tha dafendant waa aatopped by the Taota 
dUoloaed IVom acttinK up that the aooount fumUhed waa jqoorroot, aa ho had for* 
yearn paid auma on aooount, ahowing the relation botwoen the partioa, and that 
the gooda aeot to the doreiidant ware bought by pluintitr on the aanta terma, tb« 
plaintiff oited. 

Coniah tb. Abingtoa. Ilurlatone it Norinan. ReporU Bxchequer 4 Vol., p. 
540, where it wa*. 

Held : If any peraon by aotusl ezpreaaion or by a couraa o/ eotiduct ao 
conduct bimaair, that another may reaaonably infer the eziateooe of an arrangt- 
wiantor lioenaa, and aoU upon auoh inferenco, whether the former intenda that 
he ahould do ao or qot, the party uaing that language or who baa ao conducted 
himaelf.'oannot aftarwardit gainaay the reaaonable inferenoe to be d'rawo from 
bia worda or conduot. 

Bigelow on eatoppel p. 547, 3 Ed., thua girea the rulea of ea-top^l by 
conduct aa laid down by Mr. Juatioe Br«mwell, ia " that if a man ao.condubU 
himaelf, whether intentionally or not, ^at a reaaonable poraon would infer that 
a cerUia atate of tbinga exiat, and aoU oit that infei^noe, he ahall be afterwarda 
ea-topped from denying if' 

Carr v$. London and North Woatern Railway Co., 23 W. R. 747. 
Held : That a ireoogniiod proposition as to estoppel ia, that if a peraon, what- 
ever hia real intention may be, ao conduota himself that a reaaonable man would 
^ke bia conduot to mean a certain repreaentation of fact, and that it was* 
true repreaenUtion, and that be waa intended to act upon it in a particular way, 
and if he with auoh belief doea act in that way to hia damage, auoh penion is 
estopped fVom denying the facta were aa repreaented. 

.That the defence of a aettled aooount is not sufficient where the account waa 
'«zamined by an adviser and approved of, not generally^ but for the purpose of 
» mortgage being given for the balance, which nejet-Woa given ; nor where it 
contained exorbitant chargea of interest, and the advisor who approved gave 
evidence that he did not observe that the charge for interest waa 5 pit oent. 
per month, not per annum. 

Thia decisidn showa that the defence Wanswer of "a aettled aooount, " that 

had been approved of by defendant himself, would be a bar to de.fei|dant'a 

conteating the deUilaof such Meount.— And the following American autboritiea 

are to the same effect. \ ^ . ' . \ . 

Anderson wi. Levy, 34 A^R, p. dST. ^ 

A stated »oooon> ia defined to be an'igreement after an •zamination of the 

aoeoanta betwee;iih^ parties, that all>he items are true and the balance struck 

ajnat and t|ad balance. But it ia laii^tittt this agraemdtat need aot be ezpress, 



aad 
W- Uarliaff- 



^- 



V\ 




-f- 




♦jTcoOjiT OF qvpm bsnoh. im. 



•I 



•ad 
W. I)«rllag. 



^ 



tN «ndUi.Hi of ... .o«.u..t by on^ of th. p.r.l« .ml iu rtUntiop willio«» 
«bj«,».on bjr th. oth«r, ThI. rt.1./ which pr«iu«.. Ih. .m„,«1«h,„„<« „f tj' 
party to whom «n .coount wm rto^md from hi. u.or. f«il„r, uj ob..ot to it,' 
n«...l. ««„.« «.p|.„.Uo„ i„ th, ,e^ i„ »,,,,h ,, fl„,( j,„ „i,.orili«. Th« 
•«rl.«t a.«oiion w. h.». b«n .kl« io fln.l of thi. r«l. I. |„ Hh.r».,. „.. Hh.rm.n, 

irulohio. Ihu. : - Th„t .mo.g U,oh.uU it i. looked upo.. „ .0 .llowoo. of «■ 
«H.o«nt cur,%nt. if tho mordant th..t reooive. U d.«« „»t „bj«ot ,,g,iD.t It Id 

^ Lord lardwtak., in >J|IK. «. Jornog.,^ 2 Alk. 2fll, .pok. of tl.i. rol. ,hu. : 
- fc»on whor« thoro .r« yan«.olion., ...ppom, between . m.roh«t in KoRUnd 
^^ and • moroh.Dt bcyoo^ iho .«., .„d an .ooount i» tro„««ltt*l h«r« fbm th* 
' p««on who {• .bro-J, it i. not tl.« .igning which will mak. it . .t„tod tocount. 
but the p,r«,n to y^rhoo. il i. ,.„t, k^ping it by him «y l«„Kth of limi 
without m.k.ng .^y objeotioD. whioh .ball bind him „.d pr«v.n( hi. •nUrio. 
into an open aoo^unt aHerward.." 
r . qjanwilor K^», i„ Murray «,. Toland, 3 John. Ch. 569, mcnlion^l the 
rule in thcM wi^rd.-: <- It ha. been often h.ld that if a party rocoim a ,t.t«l 
^ .ooount fVo^ii .bro.d, and keep, it by him fo« any length of lime (one oom 
^ My. two yofcni) without objection, ho .hall be bound by it. Citing Willi. v$ 

u ijy?' "A" ff"' ""* ''•''•' "•• ^'""*' 2 ^'^^' 239. dwided 0., Uth March; " 
^ 1760, ,n/wh.ch la.t cam., Lord Hardwicko »ld : If one merel.unt .end. an 
^ .ccount^currcnt to another in a different country, on which a balance i. made 
^^ due t^timwlf; the other keep, it two year, without any objection, it .hall bo 
^^ deemM a .tated acoount, and hi. .ilenoe and acquicMcnoe .h.ll bind him at 

le.it .0 fur .. to oa.t the onut proban'di on him." 

M. l«okwood .w. Thorae, II N. Y. 170. An "acoount .Ut^d i. eonclu.ife 
Oimithe ^rtiee, anion impeaohed by fraud or mi.t.ke. 

To ma^fli^tf .ccoit^ .Uted, it la .ufBoient that the account ha. been examined 

'.! , T." *° " *""°* ^^ ^^^ P"»'"- The anent Aay be expre.. or 
irtpliod from circumrtanoc, whether on a giren state of fact, the tnoMolion 
opnatitutc. aibtated account i. a queation of law. 

A. » general rule, where .n account ahowing a balance ia duly rendered, he to- 
whom ,t I. rendered i. bound within a roa«)nable time to examine the nme. 
and objeot if he dispute, it. correotnetifi. 

If ho omit to do M he will be deemed from hu .ilenoe to have aoquiewMd and 
u bound by it a. an account stated. * 

Accordingly when T. & Co., a firm in New York, on the first of February. 
1847, purauant to custom, rendered to L. & Co., a firm in Ulrter County an 
!ma!1o**^ ?*'' °!"*"*' ''"""B" wntoining . ohaige aRain.t the latter of 
f b«0.48, an^ shewing a balance due them of ♦6,633.41, and L. k Co., oa tho 
17th February, drew 00 T. & Co. for an^ioMont eorn»poodiog with the balaneo 
which Fas paid, and made no objection to the ao«>aDt antU Nowmbor following^ 



xV 



.^trf' 






j*^O0t/llTOFQuRE N'fl BRNCn.'lfiflfl >**T4 

•WM improperlj oh.rRud to th«m ; ^ .. >«*J- 

IV.ii'? '.J''"* """^ """''^ ""* ""*"^*" •"•«»»* P"*'"*? •fflrm.tifolf mi.Uk« or W.I)«lto|. 
tuad JQ Uio aooouot rendenid, 

" .n .^ ; '' °j •'•• " ^^^"^ = " '* " "•'' ^^ »- • Wer.l r«I, ih.t who,, 

^ ■" '^wunt I- mtd. up and rv.d.n,d, he irho rccpi»« it i. bound to e^amin. 

^ ^^ "• nm« or to proouro •omo ono to tiimino it for him. If h* admilf it to ' ' 

M correct it b«floin« . .uted .oeount .nd it binding on fn,H, ,,<.r<,>j^th« 

balance being the debt which majr be .uod fbr and roeofered at l«w upon the 

^^ «>««■ «r .„ ,„„mu/ («m/>i4„„«„,. 80 If in.toad of an oiprew admiwion of 

^^ th« oorn.e.neM of the aooount the party receiving it keep, the same by bin,, ^ - 

^ Ma make. 00 objection within » rea«,nable time, bia •ilenco wil) bo conatrued 
. «n.o an a«,uicMenco in iu juatooaa, and ho will be bound by it as if k were » 
■■atea account." 

J^. Chappclaino v.. Dcchcnauc, 4 Cranch'a Reporta, p. 309, Marahall, C. J.; 

^T.K, K Tu '"""'"'" "''"''^ ^ ^"" clangeroua than that of opening accodnu 
Which the purtica have a.ljuated, or «uggc*tion« aupportcd by doubtful or by 
only probable toatimony." ' ■ 

See alao 7 Hurlcatono & Norman, 013. Coto & Mills. -M 
-Scott, Now Reports, 6(i7, Chcani. on account. • * -:■ 

he arguniont of Ac rcapqndent wna aubHtantlaUy, that the raid Brm of. 
»v iiiwm I)arling & Co. agreed to pay interest upon all overdue accounta at th« 
«io ot 7J per cent., which rate v,n, iq eovrr'and include all feci a,M cnmrni: 
»ion, due to mid Dudley or hU rcprenentativn, or for acrvicca rendered by him 
or roproaentutivo. na agent, of aaid firm, oa stated in pluintiffi;' doolaratibn, the 
MIU Arm and the defendant owed nothing whatever to the fii^id late Win. Dudley 
and owe nothing to .ho plaintlfiFH. for or by reoaou of the transaction! hid- 
iwtwecn them, and the anid plaintiffs, in violation of the agreement set up by ' 
thcrasolvcs ,n aajd declaration, have charged, in the balances in \hoir account 
•n addit.on to the said 7J per cent, interest, the defendant with commission. foJ 

services rendered and with fee., a-i^d have omitted to credit the discounts allowed 
to them for proppt cash as thojr were bound to do according to the ugrecmcnt ^ 
«ot up by themselves in their declaration, and according to the custom of trade '*' 
<in such matters, and it is only by making such illegal charge* that ,«|ain tiffs ' ^ * 

havebeonabletoshewabalanoeagaiostthesaidfirmofWilliamDarlingACo..'"^ . 
or the defendant. »""""., 

That the aaid late William Dudley and the plaintiffs had no right to charge '^ 

the said firm or the defendant with interest at 7i per cent, or to oharte com- ^.r 

pound interest as they have done in said account, and they were bound to have 

«wd.ted the said firm of Wm. Darling & Co.. with the usual discounts allowed 

to them-for prompt cash according to the custom of trade whioji they have not 

done, and in any case neither the said firm «,f Wm. Dafling & Co., nor the 1 

defendant, were or are indebted to plaintiff:* in wy 8om whatever 



|j 



* li 



wenj dvur wndwea to dcfeodfiit BFiiM tEJleiSl& of (he late 






./» ' 



vX 



316 



^H^~ - 



COURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 18g(^| 



W. Dodlej, -^n, p^^j'^ j^^ ^^^ plaintiffs ti-quaHU, who arenaAnd never were the dcfen^ 

W D^piino. "^""''^ "^*'"*''' ""^ "'" "°' """^ '"'^'^' '•="■** *'"*'*'«^ ^ •*«arge the defendant with 
. "•»'»• interest at 7J per pent. 

That deft-ndant and said firm of Wm. Durling & Co. never admitted any 
balance clmmcd by Ihe late Wm. Dudley or by the plaintiffs as c6rrect, or their 
right to claim interost.at 7J per cent., and any payments made by tha said firm 
of Wm. Durling & Co. or by the defendant on account of tjie firm of "V^. Dar- 
. V- - ling & Co., were made generally on general account for goods sold and delivered 
to Wm. Darling & Co., without admitting any particular balance as being due> 
That arrears of interest and compound interest are included in the balances 
. .^ set forth in plaintiff^ account fyled with their delaration, and that plaintiffs ^n 
^. _ their action have sued for and demanded of defendant arreart of interest and 

compound interest, and such interest and arrears before and at the time of the 
institution of this actidn, and now, were and.Ae wholly prescribed and extin- 
guished by the lapse of five years arid more. 

In the Court of Queen's Bench it was held that the respondent had tacitly 
"<'"g">*e'* 'he correptness of tU account?, ap rendered during a long period. 
That he had never disputed any item of the accounts, although the exe<»titor8 
repeatedly applied to him for the balance, but continued to remit sums on account, 
and he was credited by them with these sum*" on the accounts which had been 
sent to him, that having thus tacitly admitted the correotniM of the accounts' 
so rendered to him from time to time, he was ii consequence estopped from 
afterwards disputing them. . , 

Judgment reversed, Cross,* J., dissenting. 
_ Bohertion, Ritchie & Fleet, attorneys for appellants. 

- '^A» -2/- Jl/brm, attorn^ for respondent. .. 




'.: -S. 



; ■ s, COUE DU BANC DE LA EEINE, 1886. 
i (En Appel.) 

MONTREAL, 30 MAr 1886. 

Coram SlB A, A. Dorion, J.C, Ramsay, Tespiee, Ceoss et Babt, JJ. ' 

ELZEAR OODRVILLE, 

Wemandeur en Cour In/fri*ure,) 

. "^■'.■■.' ■'■.*■- ■ Appilamt; 

■ BT--'7- ■ - , 

e- t - - 

I ' ' HtRMENEGILDB LEW7C, ^ 

• W^/endleur en Cour InfMeure.) 

Ihtih^. 
Quaiid doit se /aire la diUvrance de la chote vendue hrtquHl n'y a point de 
term^^prffixi par le eontrat f^Quand laventeett centie faite en bloc ou d 
la memre f^Di/irenceitablie paries autefirt entre VinextcuHon d'uneobliga- 
tion et rtx4cution incomplite ou impar/aite du eontrat.— Effet de cette 
dutmction quan^ ifapplication de I'artick W70 du C C. 
Le jugemen t d e la Cour de — ^-"- -''- 



^^^ . 



rH4o 



GOUR DU BANC DE LA HEINE, 1886. 



317 



t'WUi oomme suit . 
Attenda que les fails ci-aprds rclatds out 4t6 prouv^s en ceUe causel:— 
Vers la fin de novcmbre dernier (1884) entro le 15 et le 25, le ddfendeur 
qui demeiirc k St. Hilaire, vint i Montreal, pour v,endre sa rdcolte de pommes ; 
11 ioffnt au demandeur, q«i «« rcnfllt, le londemain, i St Hilaire, cher le 
aeiendenr, pour voir les pommes ; la vente fut conclue, par laquelle le d^fendeur 
vendait au demandeur sa r^colte de pommes au prix de quatre-vingt-dix contins 
le quart, le demandeu^ devait envoyer des quarts vides a la station de St 
miaire, et le defendettr dey^iit aller les oheroher 14 >our les remplir et ensuite 
les retourner H h station, Ipr^'iU seraient pleins ; le deiandour devait envoyer 
^un homme, pour surveiller, la Oiise en quart de oes pommes. Le mSme jour le 
^* demandeur aoheta de Cypjjen Lariv^e, de St. Hilaire, einquante quarts vides. 
I % nommtf Lariv^ reside >utre la demeure du ddfendeur et la station de St 
J ilUaire, de sorte que le d^fendeur avait moins loin pour aller chercher ces * 
einquante quarts ehe, Lariv^e qu'4 la station. Deux ou trois jdiirs apres, le 
' ddfendeur a la chercher trente quarts ohez Larivee qui les lui llvra Sans objec- 
tion : cepenJant, le m«me jbur, Larivde se wndit chea le d^feqdeur et I'avertit 
de ne pas employer les quarts qu'il avait e^ de chez lui, avant qu'il ne fut 
paye, ou i moins que le d^fende^ir ne r^ndit de leur paiement, ie que le 
44fendeur refusa d'abofd de.faire. Le lendemain'du jour oH le demZdeur 
mint a MontrH .1 envoya a St. Hilaire un nommtf Th^dule Juneau, pour 
?urve.ller la m,se en .^uart des pommes : Juneau se rendit 4 St. Hilaire chez le 
d^fendeur^ et ee dernier lui dit alors que les quarts en question n'^taient pas 

r„ t ' ''" VT' *■'""' '^"''' """'* *"' ^' ^"•^^^' "»»« q"« «« dernier ne 
. vouWt pas qu lis fussent employes tfvant d'etre payes. Le d^fendeur ajouta 

paraiM, que puisque les quarts vides n'avaient pas 4t4 envoyds 'sans d^lai. 
<5omme ,1s devaient I'etre, il n'^ait plus disposd 4 vendre ses pommes pour le 
pnx de quatre^ingt-dix cenlins le quart, mais qu'irdemandait une piastre du 
\ <)u«rt. AIorBjuneauretourna4Montr6aIetinformaledemandeurdeceSfaits- 
Tl^T J""",«P'*^J« 'J^f«°*J«»r se rendit 4 Montreal et dit au demandeur qu'il 
4tait d«pos^ a lu. laisser aVoir les pommes aux prix convenu, pourvu I'll 
envoys les quarU sans d^lai. Le demandeur a envc^y^ cinquanL quarts Z^ 
qui arnv^i^nt 4 St. Hilaire le 29 novembre 1884, einquante autres Juar^ v de^ 
qui arriv^rent 4 St. Hilaire le premier d^mbre 18kot soixantH tqu „ 
autre^ quarts vides qu, arrivdrent 4 St.. Hilaire le .16 d^cembre. Juneau se 
rendit de nouveau 4 St. Hilaire, au commencement de d^cembre pour suryeill* 

Chez le d^fendeur et ipmsta pour qhe ce dernier r^pondit du paiement des 
quarto v,des qu,l .va,t vendus .u demandeur, et le d^fendeur pour ne pas 
«tarder lajn«e en quarts des pommes, .'est rendu responsable ^u ^ement des ■ 
iiente quarts q«',l.va,teusdeLariv^. Le 8 d^cembre 1884,-on avait rempli 

A la sUt.on de St. H.la,re, ce que le d^fendeur refusa de faire, en disant qu'il 
11 T^;lrr,^nr ^'*^^^ n"° ^o^q^'dl^" aeraient toute, mises 



E 



Courville, ■ 

et 
H. Ledttitt 



'# 



^-': 


J 


, 


1 _ ' 

■ ,' i 


" --'H- 


1 


t , * ■ 


i 


.' ■ ■ f 


; J 


■ . 


'■ M 
I ,1 




\ 

E, Oouirille, 

et 

&. Leduc. 



318 



COUE DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



.\ 






Montreal, et o'eat alors que lo demandcur a envoj6 Im Boixante^uiwe quarts 
qui arriv^renU St. Hilaire le 16 ddcembre, et o'est apris le 16 ddoembre qu'oa 
mit daos les quarts la balance das pommes. Apres queles pommcs furent mises 
• dans les quarts, elles furent places dans la boutique du d^fendeur oA se trouyait 
un po«le qu'il ohauffait continuellement. Le 19 ddcenibre 1884 le demandeur 
se rendit A St. Hilaire, chez le ddfendeur, pdur fuire transporter sea pommes 4 / 
Montreal. Le d6fendeur transporta de suite les pommes i^ la station, se servant 
pour cet objet de quatre voitures. Lo dcti andcur etait present lorsque lea 
premieres Quatre voitures furent charg&s et n\ fait aucune objection & la mbait^re 
loRt cesjpHmes t'taient charg(5,es et a lama .fere dont on les transportait;'les 
pommes^e f4^ent pas coi^vertes dans les voitu/es, et il faisaif ce jour-lA un trds 
grand froid. La distance de la residence ^i d^fendeur AJa station de St, 
Hilaire est d'environ deuk milles et demi; et la preuve constate que malgr^ le 
froid qu'il faisait il n'est pas probable que les pommei) puissent geler pendant 
Je trajet de li^ residence dii.d^fendeur d la station de St. Hilaire ; et mSme il est 
prouv^ que le mgme jour un des voisins du d^fendeur ea a transports k la 
Ration sans, les couvrir et qu'elles n'ont pas gelS. RenJues k la station de St. 
Hilaire les pommes furent d^char^Ses avec toute la diligence oonvenabie et 
mises dans le char qui leur Stait destind. Pendant qu'on mettait les quarts de 
>mme8dans les chars, I'homme. du demandeur travaillait & aUamer un poele 
■qu'il y pla^ait pour rSchauffer le char. Aprds avoir mfs deux charges de 
pommes d^ns le char, il est survenu un train qui a caus^ le dtfplacement 
du c\iar, et qui a suspcndu le chargement pendant environ une denri-heure. 
Pendant ce temps le char Stait ouvert et les pommes exposes aftltoid. Cent 
trente-sept quarts furent mis dans ce char oe jour-l4, le 19 d^mbr^et arrivercnt 
i Montreal le matin du 20 ddcembre,' et furent transportSes de la statioa 
dta Grand Tronc, 4 Montreal, au marchd Bonsftcours dans les voitures dScou- ■ 
vertes du Grand Tronc. La balance des pommes ftit mise dans le passage 
de la station de St. Hilaire qui Stait chauffS par les appartementa voisins, 
en attendant qu'elles fussent transportdes 4 Montreal. Cette balance, qui 
etait de quatre-vingt-six quarts, en y coroprenant six quarts qui\'apparte- 
naient pas au d^fendeur, fut n.ise 4 bord d'un char, k la station de St. Hilaire' 
le 26 ddcembre 1884, A arriva jt Mon<rSal dans la nuit du 25 au 26 dScembre. 
II paraSt que lorsque les pommes jiont arrivees & Montreal on a constat^ qu'elles 
etaient geldes, et le demandeur n'a pu en retirer qu'environ cinquante centina 
du quart, y compris les quarts, liorsque le dSfcndeur a transport^ les pommes k 
la station de St. Hilaire, le 19 ddcembre, un des quarts s'est ouvert par accident 
et I'agent de U station dit qu'il a constat^ que les pomn)es qui se trouvaient sur 
le dessus du quart Staient geldes. D'autres temoios pr^tendent que 095 pommes 
^talent alora en bonne condition, maid que quelques-unes sent tombSes par terre 
*t y sent restSs paidunt assez longtetnps pour qu'elles fttssent gel^s lorsqn'on les 
les ramassa. Le demandeur paya, le 9 dScembre 1884, au dStendeur une somme 
de 1117.00, prix des 130 quarts qui avaient^t6 empaquet6s auparavant, et la ba- 
lance du prix des pommes fut pay^ au dSfendeur le 19 dSoembre jour oA le de^ 
tt^tttor Tint lea chereher. ■ 



H - 



' . »'■ 



\ 



\ 



-eOUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1886. 



319 



Altendu qutfie demandeur, par son action institude lo' 6 Janvier dornier, r<5- E. Oourrllte 
clame du d61eiideur des dommagcs au montant do $424.55, »i»»oir : ' £ Loda 

Pour le coftt de 317 barils vidcs H fingt-scpt opntins le baril... $38 59 

.Transpoitde barils vides & quatro centins le baril 8 ,68 "^ 

Temps de riioiume pour surveiller la mise en quart 12 6b\ 

i^illets de passa^ de cet homme 5 00 

Prix d'achat des pommes. 194 gO Ai ' 

Profit n(»t que le demantleur aurait rdalisd 225 69' 

' Y .^ob.!..... $484 sL 

sur Inquejlp soinme il donne credit au ddfendeur pour une somme d^ $60 qu'ilji 

pu retirer par la ventq de cea pommes'en tirant le nioilleur parti pOsslKe, ce qui 
laisse une balance de $424^5 qu'il reclame. 
Attendu que le d^fendeur a plaids a cette action qu'il n'a pas refusd de livrer <- 

les pommen, mais qjie lo d^fendeur pat les transporter i la station toutes ik la fois; 

que le d^tendeur a toujpurs ele prfit & transporter les pommes k la station de St. 

Hilaire, mais q^il n'a pu le faire, vu la negligence du demandeur de payer I0 

cout des pouinies, tel que oonvenu, qa'aussitdt que les barils furent livr^s, le de 

mandeur s'enipressa d'empaqueter et do transporter les pommes a la station de St] ; 

Hilaire, ou il ^tait tenu de les livrer ; qu'alors la saison ^tait trds avanc^e et que 

les pommes ^taient exposdcs a souffrir de la temperature ; <jue le jour ou le d^fen. 

dcur a transports les pommes a St. Hilaire le demandeur n'Stait pas encore prfit 

a les recevoi|:;*et que c'est la' faute du demandeur s'il a soiiffert des dommages ; , « 

Considerant qu'en vertu des dis'positions de I'acte 1070 du Code Civil, le 
demandeur ne peut reclamer les dommages-interfits du defeudeur, pour I'inex- ' 
dcution de son obligation de livrer les pommes, vt qu'U ne I'a pas mis en " 
. demeure de les livrer, conformement aux dispositions de I'article 1067 du 
mSme Code, et qu'il ne pouvait forcer le dSfendeur & livrer ces pommes par 
partie seulemeiit et avant de les avoir payees en totality ; et que d'ailleurs il ' "' 
devait lui envoyer des quarts vides dans lesquels le dSfendeur devait mettre 
ces pommes: ce qu'il ne parait av6(ir fait oompUtement que le 16 dSoembre 
dernier; ^ 

Considerant qu'il paro!t resulter de la preuve que les pommes etaient en 
bonne condition lorsqu'elles ont it6 mises dans 1^ quarts & la residence do 
defendeur, et que le demauiieur est allS les oheroher aussitSt aprds qu'elles fu- 
rent mises dans les quarts, dont la balance n'avait 6t6 envoyee que le 16 dSoem- 
bre dernier, et que les pommes ne paraissent pas avoir Boi;^ert du froid ohes 
le defcEdeur; 

Coi^ derantque le demandeur a vu charger les pommes daps les voitures ohes 
le dtfeHdeur et qu'U parait avoir consent! au transport de ces pommes i^ la 
station, de la manidre que le defendeur en cette cause les traisporta, et que ' 

le demandeur a reyu ces pommes ^ la station de St. Hilaire; Consideraiit 
que le dSfendeur etait, il est vrai, tenu de transporter ces pommes de sa residence 4 



il 



J 



ri\ 



n 



-Hilaiier^^BBii 



pfeuvft qiill ^iait tenn 






,'*-^t 



^->- >- 



:K, 



COUR JOU BANC.DE^XA REINE/i886.; 



^* 



E^ CourriU, d'accompHr cette obligaUon de la maniire et danh k Wraps indiqui par lo'demad.ur 
U. L«duc. 00 qu il parait avoir fait; . " ' 

, Considdranfc dans tous lea ou quo pour que le domand«ur p^isse r^usair dans 
wn action il lui aurait fallu prouwr d'uiie maniWipdubitable que lea p6tome*- ' . 
^ , «5taie^t gelA»8 lorgqu'elleB lui ont 6t4 livr^Ses k la station -de St Hllairc • ^' ' ' 

Coni^ddrant que, pai? la preuve faite, en pent huasi bien «^roire que o^ pommee ' 

oot8<pffertdi,ffo.dpeDdant,letrajetdeSt.H1laire4flIontr<5aletdelaPointe- . 
^t. Charles U'amvU dcs chars, au marchiJBons^ours, et que dans \i doute le ' ' 
, demandeur ne pent recouvjer les dommagesi' lorsqi'il ae pourrait que dbm^iages' • 
, auraient ^t^ causds aui potomes pendant qu'oUes ^taient sous sou contHJle- 
abaola; ^'.- .„-■.,„ i i,, .,■ ,,^ .t''--^-'-' \' '■ -t. -" : ' ■ '" 

9on8id,5raritqn«*ledeirtaadeurpoufobt*iurde8domniage8 centre li d^ibded^'' . ^ 
_ . . _-_ .jeva,t proaver que m dofnniagcs av^icnt <Std caiie^s par. la fauW.ou par'la " * 
. Mgligenoedece dernier etqn'iln'a pas fait cettVpreuv:e- ' ''- - 

. Consid^Ant que la d^fepse du d^^fcndeur esl/bi^n fond,Se et qu^ rabtfon d* ' 

demandeur est m^ fo^jd^e ; ' ' / '• - 

'"'■■• ' r t "'5'*T "' ?""''"" i'^^ehn«> ap d^fi^deur et a t^oji et reovoie '. 
. i aotioB da Oemandeur avee d^pens. •/ *' ' ; ' ' 

lyevant la oour d'appel I'appelant k >retend«/que le jugemeot demit dtw io- ' L " 

. ,f'"^'^'*™f'»8y»nta««dommag«sr4sultan^durefu8de'livrer les 130 quart; V^^ 

! ,de^p^ma,esl|.8dgcen.brel884. Voiel co^at 8'*xprime sort factum • 
/ La question e^t par consequent de savoir si L^uo avaif droit de se refuser 
- , -^e livrer^ces 130 quarts, ap^t^3 avoir 6t4 notifife deJe-faire fet aprt* avoir recu ' 
„ la^en. U <tefenw pretend que LWuc nW.t pas oblige ^e Umr oes p9mmes^ 

par partie, que toute k rdcolte ayant ^t^ vendue,^e ;vendeur pouvait exigeVde W ' - ». 
• , Ijvrer toutes A la fois. C'est aussi I'opinion de la Cour Infdrleure ^ • 

, ^td mentionne dans la cohvention(c6mme dan^ ce eas.>i)la vente-des ehos^ tto. ' ' . 
,, • bilteres.se tpuve'parfaite aussitot qu'elles sont pesdes, compt^es ou mesoS, * , 

/ quwrt. La doctrine, 4tom% est bien-^^esurcepQittV ' . 1^ ' 

, Pothier, vente. No go"^, J/ "'.-^ ,v .. . f ' ., ./• ' ' 

/ • "Quaadil n'y a^pointf de feme pr4fini par le contrat, le vendeur doitlivrer ! ' 

h. chose au8S.t6tquel'|cheteur, qui en a paye le prix. ou^^^ 

<|e,amo.nsy.ln'yeutq«elquej&<,^„8b.qaieur^^^^^^^ ' 

Iroplong, Vente, No295: V •/ \ - • ' . -. '• -^ ' 

^ dotiHri^i'T'''"''""'?^'^^'^^'^'^"''^^ "■ 

do t hvrer la phosc au8s.t6t que laeheteurVqui s'est lib^Sr^ du pri,,- demode * 

qu elle lui soit remise." ' . V "^ ^t' ".,'*"'''' „, 

Duvergier, Vente, vol. I> page 309, No ^3LV " *' ^^l v ' 

"I^ delivranee doit; « fairedans le temps eoivcmu entflft le^parties^^tsi'rien ^'^ 
na ^ttf oonvenu, aus8.,6t que I'noheteur reiigc en^antle prix: et mhmfZ V 
^ "le payer, a il a un d^Iai ponrse lib^rer.•^ • /'^ W .k ' ^ *"«8«"s ^ .* 







-I 






/^ 



COUR DU BANCCJl LA RHINE, 1886. 



321 



, .,^ ' — • — 

— " On peut encore oonsulter sur ce point Dalloz, Rep., Vo. Vente, No 631 ; ^Oonnmt • 



Kurcadtf toI. 6 p. 236 ; Mass^ ct Vergtf, vol. 1 p. 238 ; CyN. Art. 1612. 

" Ainsi done Leduo n'avait paa raiaon de refuser la limison des 130 quarts. 
S'il avait exJoutd son contrat, Ics'pommes n'turaient pits geW oo&me elles Iq 
furent par la suite, car cllea no furent ezp^di^ea que* Ifi jours aptim Certaine- 
uient qu^f aeheteur a souffert des dommages de ee retard caus^ par la mauvaise 
foi du d<Sfendeur, par sa n6j»ligenoe etpar lafaute 4 no pas fairo ce qu'en droit 
ft en 6quit^ il devait fuire. 

" II ne peut y avoir de doute sur la qnestibn do savoir s'il s'agit ici d'uno 
/vente en bloc ou d, la nwsure. Notre article 1474 est bien olair :— 

" Lorsqae dea choses mobili^ros sont Vendues au^poids, au compte ou & la 
" mesure, ct non en bloc, la vente n'est parfaite que lirsqu'ellea ont 4ttS peseeB^ 
" comptdes ou meaur^ea ; maia I'aclleteur peut en demander la d^livrance ou dea 
'• domnjoges-interSt*, suivant les cirjjanatancea." . 

" La vento cbt nu poida, au compte ou a la mesure, dlt Marcad^, (vpl. Q, 
Vente, p. 155) lo; Quand on vend les choses bi'en masse, jai pour un seul prix 
2o. Si la condition d'unit^ d'objet ri'oxiate pas, alora qu'on aurait oelle de 
I'unit^, de prix. 3o. Quand c'est la condUion d'unitd de prix qui 
, manque (c'est le cas ici) quoique les choses soicnt indiqu^cs en masse ; ainai 
JO voua ven^a le lot de caW que j'ai dans ce magasin, t^ quatro franoi^^ le 
kilogramme, ou mon troupeau 4viogt-cinq francs par mouton, ou cetto cuve de 
vin A vingt, franca le decalitre. - 

" Ces troia regies posdes par Pothier ont g^n^ralement 6t6 observjSeS par les 
tuteurs moderncs. 11 y a eu quelques JiflKrenVjes d'opjnion, quant 4 la question 
de savoir qui,'du vendour ou de I'acheteur, doit 6tre tenu responsable de la 
chose, si elle vient a p^rir, jusqu'au temps de la livraison.' ' 

. " Ici, oette difficult^ ne peut pa» se presenter paroe que, par la convention, les 
pommes devaient gtre livr^es & la gar^, 4 St. Hilaire, par le vendeur, de sorte 
que le vendeur oontinuait 4 gtre responsable, memo apr& le-mesurage jusqu'^, la 
livraison 4 la dite gare. i -^' 

" Le juge a qm, ^nonce, dans le consid^^iint qui suit, une opinion que nous 
conaid^ronsnonfondde en droit. 

"Consi4drant qu^en vertu des dispositions de Ifarticlo lOtO du Cocle Civil, le 

demandeur ne peut r^olamer les dommagesrint^rets du d^fendfe po'*^ l'"^^' 

, oution'de son obligation de livrer des pommes, vu qu'il ne I'Jpas Wis en de* 

meure de Ict livrer, conformtfment aux dispositions, de Particle 1067^u mdme 

Code, et qu'il ne pouvait forcer le demandeur d livrer ie$ pommetplr partie 

seuUment et avant de les avoir pay6t$ en tStaliti; otiq^e d'aiHeurs/il dfiVait lui 

enVoyer des quarts vides dans lesquels le d^fendenr devait mettre^es pommes-^ 

oe qu'il ne parait avoir fait eompldtement que le 16 ddcenjbre dernier." 

" K " ■^*. P^^wnte demands n'est pas une action pour .dommages proVcnant 

do retard'dans I'ez^iltion du contrat, c'est une dcmande pour dommnge prove- 

nant <fe Vexicution incomplite ou impar/aite du cftntilit. Car le contrutf 

en fait, a ^t^ ex^uttf ; seulcmenft, la manidre dont on l'a'eifeiit<S » a^n^ 

• des torts au demandeur. • • 



H. Leduo. 



..^ 



^ 



/I 



■%/ 



I 



■ f _ 



:( ■■■. 



m 



COUR m BANC DE LA HEINE, 1886. 



•;B.CourTllle «« n*#t- j:-»- »• ^ ^^ ' ^ •- , 

Uw d'uo, oblintion pure a 2,2 n'u , '°''" "'"'" ' ''««.»- 

^ w« tntrcs que 1 on appella vmaloira. • - - ' 

<'rp»« *jjr"»'«t™.dune mam^rd^complite et8ati8fai8ante>\ 

V ^ inntile. ' '' '''''''^'- ^^»"« ««« ""-constancee la mise en domeure est biea^ 

■ \"t;r.j :r xttr:r r " '-■"•- -T-^.i Tat 

>314) " ^ ^ '° '""'° ''°"«*'*»^ «» •JeO'cyre (vol. 24 p 



t>, 



-v^- 



COURBV BiNC DB LA RETNK, 1886. 



323 



y?' w™, « J^i 7; 1 Ji dl 7'""'* -""""•""' * °"' "''''«"'»" > »« p- 

' C««..8a,.^,832;Siroy,32 398. ''"•'"'■• , ' \ - . 

que vft o^^rrj •'"J' ^/°'' contradiction dans l/preave ct 

uneddcHlon pour..coepter uno r.5vision diffdronto de la prcuve. / ' T^' ' 
^rfi»wnrfZarert«,.avocatdel'appelant Jugein«nt «onflrm^. , ^ 

^'^"^^ <?foft«..%, Bimillonet Bro»seau, avocata de I'intjiniJ. ' ^ ■//, 

. COURT OP REVIEW, 1886. 7 # ' 

. ' »'0'^TRe4, NOVEMBER 8TB, 1886.' - ' 

Present, LoRANOBa, J., Ta8ohebeau,.J. and Gill, J. . ' 

JOHN GLALOX, ET AL., / 

A.VD J'eiilioner*/or mandamtu ; ■ 

' / , JOHNFAlRBAIBN,tTAL., * - 

^- \ Th-»ti. •^^'"*^«*'**^'°'e" I'^ta shall be closed has erninwi. 

Uonm GI,b„ ,„d ttol„« Mhera, ,Dd orderfd the d.re„d.ott in A,ir c.i, 
^°^v««w It was ai^qed that, th9 Bo a rd otBo»iaor»did^w,tM«d^.u.erelv ■ 

hilt-. 4>.liAn BA* ■:..j:.:-ii_ • <• • «• ... . <^ 



™.-»«id A-ncu.. bu. .h^„. i.,«^ i.dej^:;;:?^ris 



li 



* 



:;J-, 



,1 



V-4M 



324 



COURT OF REVIEW, 1886. 



J. UlaloD, 

etc). 

and 

r. Fairbain 

ctal. 



.-x 



hew judgment, ai provided bj the Statute 48 Vict, ch. 67, Soot. 10, Upon the 
olaima made for the ioMrtion ot ominion of namoa in or from the uid list, and 
that coDsequently a writ of mandamua could not iaaue to compel them to do 
wtat the Statute had pUoed within their discretion. 

It was further submitted that the water rate which the petitioners claimed 
exempted them from payment of the Statute Labor tax waa not a tax, but aimply 
the price of an article furnished by the city, and that the payment of saoh water 
rates coliH not in any woy be considered a ooptribution to the funds of the city, 
Hud furthermore that even supposing it were a tax, the petitioners would still be 
subject to the personal tax, as they did not contribute to the charge de U voirin:' 
Numerousmuthorjtios were referred by the defendants in support of their ooo- 
tentions. On the point that in such oa«OB as. the present a mandamus will not 
lie, they cited ; * • ^ \ 

2 Dillqp, Mun, Corprns. No. 832, p. 824. 
-A-n<i„. " " Nos. 662, 699 v>d seq. 

High, Ext. leg. rem, Nos. 32, 342, 843, 406 4408. 

Topping, Mandnmus, p. 16, 121, 369, 360. 

MbBts, p. 154, 199, 202 4.204. * * 

Fisher's Harrison's Digest. Vo. Mandamua p. 6638. / \ jb^^ 

Potter's Dwarris, on Statutes, p. 236. '' J ^S 

Arnold, Mun. Corp. 59 ; 
• Hardcastle, Interp. of Stat. p. 84. [ -^ 

Severn vs. Queen. 2 Supreme 0. R. p. 70. > j .. ' 

Rev. de Leg. <fe Jur.p. 310, exparte Renouf. 

Codifier's Report of art. 199& p. XXIV. . 

ConMStat. L. C. oh. 2, § 6. 

Arnold, Mun. Corp. p.p. 85 and 196. f 

Th Mayor of Hythe, h A. & E.p. 832, referred to in Reg v. Mayor of 
^«*tfr, 7 Elht & m^bum hy Lord Campbell at page 926. 
0¥^e farther conreEftwn that water rates could not be oonsiilonM a tax 
they gavftK, * 

36 Gc^I, ch. 9, SB. 67-60. 
39 " \^h. 5, ss. 21-6123. 

3 et 4 Vict., cV36, ss. 41 et 43. '4 

4 Vict., ch. 32, s. I4. 
8 " ch. 69, 88. 10, U, 39, 40, 48, 60.' 
14 et 16 Vict., oh. 86,— Toxe pour travail personnel. " 

" " ch. 128, 88. 44, 63, 66, 68. 

37 " ch. 61, 8. 26, par.e-^. 29, 71—77 par. 3 et 4. 
L 39 " oh. 62, 8. 1. \ J, 

42-43 " oh. 63, 8. 27. ^X, / « 

46 " oh. 78,88. 9, 10et8eq.,14,I5, 

Rdglements de 1862, p. 76. 
Merlin— R^p. Vo. " corvie " p. 466, No. 18. 
J. du P. R6p. G6tt., Vo. corvee, Vos. 13 et H. 

« ," 2; , " ^°- <5hemin8 vicinaux, Nob. 462, 651. 
Code Man., Art. 779-783 et pastim. 

Cooley.— Const. Lim. 2de tfdn.— p.^607 4 505f, pauim et No. 608, M not* 
«J, p. uUti. j^ > 

Cooley— Tax— pp. 646, 647, note. / ^ 

" ^e^-=-pp. 6 et 7 ' • 

For the petitioner it was contended ttifttiitK»«> th^ \ ^ ^ pf 1799 t i tttntr 











. -V; 












■\ 






\ 




!■ 



• 






• '|P^B 






lipon the 




d liat, and 




em to do 




a claimed 


T 


)ut simply 


'^ m 


aoh water 


V ■ i' 


r the city, 


■f 1 


Id still be 


'■.'.'' ^ 


l» voirit'. 




their ooq- 


. :-H 


s will not 





COURT OP REVIEW. 1880. 



325 



«oald oot bo held ^Mjfflto Stututo lubor, that under it nnly tUo-o who contri- J 
bated to the funds oTtTio city in no othur wny wore liiiblo, and tbo potUionors 
having contributed "by' payini^ tlio wotor tsx wliith wim roiilly ii lai, ond had so J- 
been hold, thoy wore not liable. That, uioreovor.tho ren| o^U^e tux war in" 
reality paid by tho tonont ns tho rent wai njudu to Include it. 

Tho further question wundidU uiandiiinos lie in tliis oim), on this it was sub- 
mitted that in Knjxlan^tho Court of Quoon'rt Iknch liMii the riuht to interfor* 
where the law had been miinifestly violat^id by an inferior juirsdiciion, on tiio some 
principip that the Ceurt iiltcfforo:* by cf-rtiorari, and by art. 1022, C. 1'. a man. 
damns lies here wherever it iies in Ei»},'land, the outhoi itii« given bilow were 
cited to show where a^ iii! what o;imo8 n niaudhniUM under Eiiu'li^h law. 
Trapping, p. 12 and jnoto Z tO-jr. 13 and p. U. " Ii must, however, bo olonrly 
" understood, thot although th<iir|j may be 4 discrotionary power, yet if it be 
" exercised with manifest injustioi,^ the Court of B. B. is not precluded, from 
" oommiindinj; its due exorcise ; thiijurisdiotioa, under such circumstances, 
'' being clearly established." J'^ « ' 

7 Ellis'ft Blackburn, 909 and"2f t)^. Rep. 434. Baron Martin, " In our 
" opinion the want of such remedy wou(d be inconVeniont to the subject, and 
" iiyuHQUB to the community. Members 6f Municipal Corporations would be 
" dcprivedxof the rights, and the public loqp the advantages to create and secure 
<' which thos^rights were coniferred. Instead of being astute to discover reasons 
" fo' no' npplyingthis groat constitutional remedy for error and misgnvcmment, 
" we think it our du^ to ba vigilant to apply it in every case to which, by any 
" reasonable con8truoti<^n, it can-he made applicable." 

High, on extraordinary remedies, No. 327, •' Where a board of twenty supor- 
viA)rs, acting under a mistuko as to the law, have refused a license to which the " 
applicant was clearly entitled, the writ has been allowed." 

2 Dillon § 832. " Discretionary powers are subject to judjoial control, by 
" mandamus, in eztrabrdinary> and exceptional instances to resirlin gro'i.s abuse.' 

Bedfield, on Railways (Edition of 1869), p. 643 and note to p. 645, where 
English as well as Amerieaif eases are cited. 

Wood, on Mandamus, p. 635 •' Courts will not interfere with the exercise of a 
" discretionary power, unless ii appears that JLjuh discretion has bebn abused." ' 

Ibid, p. 80. « A manda^ will be to cornel the commissionciVof jurors 
'■ to strike off the name of a person who under the Statute is entitled to have 
*' his name stricken off. It 4s true he is required to hear and determine 
" ezoase«, but when thtf excuse is a legal one, he cannot refuse to allow it, and 
" the fact that he is required to hear and determine the sufficiency of such ' 
" excuse is not a judicial act within the rule relating to mandamus." 

P. 84. " Generally in all cases where public officers refuse or neglect to per- 
" form a duty or * conform tp the law ' in disohnrging it, and a particular party 
' is affeoted thereby, he may hare his remedy by mandamus." 

P. 88. "A person who has been unlawfully deprived of membership in a 
' ' corpoitate society may be restored by mandamus." 

S>ine_page. "It li ea to comp e l I board to oonfirm ■ a eosaomeBte wbktr ^^^^ 
** |hey refused to confirm under erroneous, belief that they had no jurisdiction." 



. Olalom 
•tal. 

•Dd 
Pnirbaim. 
•t al. 



7 



?. ii 



COITRT OP KEVIEW, I88tf. 



J. UImIoii,' 

■od 

J. Fairbalm. 

«UI. 



\ 



of 



. In our own Cdart. the que..ion had Un decided by the Court of QueeD-i 

a. r.Th" r •''"''* *''"* "'" ^""^^ '"•^ J»H-«liotIon to iMue the mandamu., u well 
a. that the Uev.8or. were not /«„c/» ojicio, and that the judgment of the cZ 
below should bo oonflrmed. * ^^ 

eip^hty of Montreal, refu«,d to reoogniao the petitioner, aa qualiBed/Cto/, 
JH,cauBe they had not paid the .tatute labor U,. The latter eomln 
th,a dee.s.o« by a wnt of mtfnd.n.u., and eontended that the atat«t/la 
.8 due only by those who not do pay any tax to the n.unielpity./Thev 

abor a^' Th !, rr I"'""' """'•"•^^'^ '" "ot aubjeeZ Zat.tut^ 
labor tax. The dcfondanta answered that the real estate taZ i. iTid bv the 
P^pnetor. unless there be a stipulation to the contrary, Z thTtho Jater 
l.to represent, merely the priee of an article consumed, a Jis 2 a tax • th. 
even ,f 'f^ere a tax the petitioners would still be subjeeX tlTpa r^nil ax 
inasniueh as they do not contribute to the charged^Wla X-ie Moller 

and iudicfr'""'' '" VT'"^^''''"'^^^^-'^^^^^ 

and judical powers, and that a mandamus does not lie against them. The 

fl«t three questions raised by the defendants are questiqw of law the 
jolution of which is to be found in the interpretation of the city charter acts- 
he fourth .» a question of jurisdiction and procedure. It is admitted that the 
Statute labor tax still exists, and that the petitioners have not paid it. It is 
1^ admitted that they had paid the water rates. It remains tT be decided 
whether these riife. are a tax, and whether the payment of them frees the 
peUtioners from the statute labor tax. The first aqueduct wa. oonstrocted in 

«^LinA7»T7 "1 ■ '*"'"*^' ^" ^^ ^«""- ^' y^"- »>•«"« tbe 

for Soo?«l?™«^T'"T"" '" '"^^"""^ **» ?"'»»•"« th^.qned«ct 
for 1200,000, and succeeded to the rights and obligations of the company It 

w«i not until • later period that the corporation was authftrixcd to impose a 

tax on the occupants of bouses, shops and any other building^,, and it was made 

compulsory, on them whether they took the water or not. 'in 1862 the 

ooqw^tion, made a new loan.. These l««m. were a|l secured on the property in 

the city, and the bonds issued form part of the consolidated debt; and the 

interest ,s payable out of the general fund. I draw the oonolarion from the 

nStr^ Ti? *^fi V- '^^ f ''•'^ ^" '™'" " • »« *■»' P»n««» ef general 
atUity. The 18 Vict., chap. 162, leayes no doubt m this ^int, and from 
this time the water rate was exigible, whether any water was rt»eiTed by the 
penwD paying . it or not. Subeequeot l v tU ?i Vint , «h n , .■ j ^„, / „ 



■r. 



-^ 




COUBT OP REVIEW, 1886. 



8ST 



^ ««>N0.49lh«word "«,ti«ition"wMiM«l. Lutly, io 1874, th« oh.rtor .cU. 
wew reviMd .nd ooMolidaUd, and ihc diipoaitiooi nUting to Ui« aquflduot 
w«r. ooDtiDMd. The amouat of the wator rai« U reooverabli. in the «am« way 

TM !'PH' *•*"* '^^* *'*•'' °"^ '"' ""^ '''^' ''"* »•»» »" " -ti" «»R«Wt. 
Ihii aho^a the Juatioe of the petitionera' pretention, that (he waUr rate doM 
not rSProMnt mcrdy the price of an article conaumed. Moreofer, the tar'iff if 
baaed Im the r^tol i^nd not on the amount conaumcd. The defendanta f^tffcr 
urged that eve^ if it were a tai, the atatuto labor tai la atill exigible, becauae it 
repreaenta the twntribution to the eharg„ de la voirie, or maintenance of roada 
and pubho markets, and that tho petitionera are not oiompt fVom pajing it I 
donoe Tiew the matter in thh. light. .The atatute labor tax repreaenU tho 
. contribution of thoae who do not otherwiae contribute to tho niunioipal 
burdens If the wate'r tax ia a niunioipal charge, aa baa been ahown 
abofo, those who pay it [are exempt from the atatuto .labor tax. The court 
below maintained the petitioners' pretention that the real catate taxea are 
in reality paid by the tenants, eren without speoiaragroiment. • In tbia 
particular the judgment erred and must be reformed. I have no heaiUtioD 
in Baying that it is the proprietor, and not tho tenant, who, in tho abaenoe of 
apcoial agreement, pays the real estate tax. The next queation ia that of 
jurisdiction. Qn ihis point I hold that the funotiQ*a of. the levlaers aro 
. restricted to the verification of the quality of the pcfs^ns on "Rie Hat, toaee 
whether such persona have paid their dues, and are inseribed undef their proper 
names, aikd in the ward w^ere they have a right td vote. It is no part of their 
duty to determine whether the dues paid by the. ^rsons inscribed on the lists 
arts taxea which exempt them from the atatute labor Ux or not. That is a 
matter of law and interpretation which pertains to a higher authority. Their 
discwftion exte^jds only, to matters of fact, an4 not to matten of law."^ In the- 
present case the defendants had interpreted tho law, and if their intorpretatioii. 
was erroneous; the petitioners would be unjustly deprived of a legal right. Tho 
defendants have refused to recognise the petitiobers' right, and they have been 
condemned to repair thfiit error, |he tourta having decided that tliey were not 
/mcti officio. T^e. water rate is a Ux, and it is admitted that the petitioned 
baye paid it; the latter jire duly qua!i^Mr«d.yet they hi^ve been disqualified 
owing to an erroneous interpretation of the law. Is there no remedy for this- 
injustice? The majority of the court holds that the rebedy exists, atad that the 
petilionert are entitled to the relief prayed for by th/proceeding in mandamus. 
The judgment will therefore be confirmed/ except afl^ that part which declared 
that the real estate tax is payable by the tenant or occupant, a»d not by the- 
proprietor. . ' 

y Ju^ment confirmed. Tasohereaa dissenting.. 

Muirt. Barnard «fe Barnard, attorneys for petitioners, 
i&uer .Aoy/attorney for defeDdants. . >* 



I. Mlato» 
•» ai.., 

P«lrb«(nb 
*lai. 



^ 



. 



^' 



■-••■ . 




1 

* 


• y- ■■■■ 




. ..■■■ 


• 


• 




/ 

# 

V 






^ : — 


i 


t 







,■* 



#" 



^18 



COUR 8Uf ElllHrnK, lfi84. 



•' 









i 



. COUR SUI'KlUKJJUK. 
MONTRKAL, • HIPTKMHRI IW4, 
* Pr^l : I/Hon. JbttI, J. 
^;8LK»Tl^fMlLL0T. 

riRKRB MIM,OT,«l«l, 



DlMAI»IOB ; 



DltauMt/M. 



-Qu'«n prinelp« lit cr«*ne« 4'«llm4nt dui « ofino pitMit d« pant 4tN I'obUtd'uno 
oomptdMlioD ni dun* ultlt. (Art lioo 0. C. ttSMO. P. 0.) ' 

Voloi jugemoiil de la cour i : 

L« Cour oprL\!i avoir entondu \tm partlcii lar U niotloD du ddfondour tux la* 
-quo le demandeur tott tenusoni quinio joum do ddlai, k payor ten Trail enonuru« 
|Mr le dit ddfondcur dans uno pricAlonto action intentAo oontro lui p*r W^fiit 
deiuandour, ot quo fauto du paienient do cm frals, la prdsonto action koik|i^d- 
bouWoaveo ddpens; opr6¥ avoir uxamintS lo proo<Sduro, vu lot affidaviU proMita 
•t^voir ddlib<«r«J : ~ 

Conaid^runt qft'cn principo la ordonoo d'alimont* das txnfficio piatatU o« 
pout fltre I'objet d'uno compcnsotion ni d'uno ^iii« ; , 

Vu rorticio 1190 du Code Civil at I'lirUole 668 du Code do ProcWure 
•CiTilo ; 

CoDsiddront quo la crdanco pour frois d'uno promiiro action qu'invoque ioi 
le ddfendcur centre lo domandeur noMuraitjn oonadquonoo Otro opposdo Ace 
dernier en extinction d'autant do la detto qi»'il rdclamo par m domindo ; 

Consid-drant que soumettfo -lo domnndour A I'obiigation du paicnfcnt prdalablo 
do CCS frais, avant do lui pcrmettrode continuorwi ptdaento demando serait vir- 
tuellemcnt foreer lo doiimndcur do subir la compensation do sa crdancfe pour 
autant et lui rondro rnipossiblo 1 exoroice dc son droit ; 

Considirant en con^dqucnco qtt«f article 453 du Code do Proo(Jdure<Jivk 
■ne saurait H'appliquer h rosp<^oe, m -^ ' ' 

Rojetto la dite motion dud<5fondeur Pierre ,MiIMavood<5pcn«. / 



.*- ■' • ■ . 
J-, ■ ■ 


i/imnmrt, tAnnvUU et Mircecm, avooats du demtndour. 
PiKfHuilo, Taillon et Lanctot, avocot»du domandeur PiorrQ MjUot. 
^JUdmond Lareau, avooat du ddfendeur Tousaaint Millet. ' 

■« . ■ ■■»- "■ . ■ 

.» 


.1 


■ ' ' ■'■■ ' 




,' 




«v# 


1 

■ ) 




* ' , * ..^ 




>- ^ 


.A. 


^- 


^- . .- ^ / 





OOUR DK REVISION, 1883. 



n^ 



OlMAHDnSMM ; 



COUK DB RKVISIOK 
' MONTRIAL. n PBUIMHRI IMI. . 
Coram Torbanci, Dohutt, at Jitti, J.J. 

DkMt MALVIPCA BRAODftr tl «>,, 

CAMS IIENRIETTK DOUUIJEIUE. 

, DtPiNomMfi. 

JP«».-Qu'«u CM d« r«iUI*ll«o 4u Iwll poor qMlqnn fhulM da foMl«lr« w d.rnjcr Mt 
una d« paytr U lo;«r Juiqu A l'4faou»iioa dtt Ilcui tt auMi dti domniagti 
IntirAu Unl k raiion d« la (wrU d«i lojf.Tri |>«niUul l« irini** o/<c«Halra 4 
U r6lo««tlon que puur tuuta •ulr« ptrta rdiiiltaut d« I'abui du locataln 
(Mt. M37, (J.C.) . 

*i" ** "n»P<« d« !•■ r«<pl«m« dant FintUoc*, pour Ic paifntnt doqQ^tA 

d«in«nd«rtiM •'•it |>ort«« eaiitlon m p«at «tra r«clam6 par caiia dernlftrt 
qu'auunt qu'«n« aurait «t«j)ounulvi« an Juitlet |>ar U ertoneltr <Mt. 1963, 

LejuKcnicntdo la oour de protni<^r« in«Unoo (Matbieu, J.) m lit ootnoi* luit : ; 
Attondu que le oniidnM) jour de Janvier dernier, la deniandereaM) a pour- 
•uivl la d<srcndereHw et qu'ello alldguo dana aa ddclaration, tolli» qu'amond<Se et 
produite, «jue, par bail aoua aeiog privd pa8t<$ en double, i\ Monlrdal, k vingt 
mars mi] Iftiit cent quatre-vingtdeux, la demandcresse a lou< 4 la ddfenderuiic, 
jpriaente et acocptant pour lo terme d'uno ann6e, ik oommenoer du premier mti 
mil huit cent quatre-»ing^deul, lea lieuz auivanU, aavoir : " Un emplauement, 
'• aia et ritu<$ en la Cit^ de Montreal d(wigu<$ au plan et ]i*re a« renvoi offioieladJ 
" quartier ^ I^mrtnt loua l^umdro de la iubdivision " du lot No. 169, 31, 
" »Teo aBtflhison portant'No. 86V do la rue Outerio et d<5pendanoo ;" que o« 
bail fut ainai fait pour le prix de trente piastrea par ifioia, payable par U 
pwwiw q»« la ddfendercase a'eat cngag^e de fournir i la demandereaae ; quo U 
d^fcodeNeaea pria poaaeaaion dea lioux louda le premier mai mil huii cent 
<»lMtre-»iDgt-deux, et <iu'elle doit k la domauderesae la lomme de cent oinb- 
piastrea pour loyer & compter du onie de Janvier mil huit cent quatrc-v|ngt- 
troia au premier mai auivant, pour lea causes duivantcB, aavoir : que la d^fende- 
reaae, d^garnit, enldve et diveatit lea meublea et cffeU qu'elle a plao^a dana le* 
lieuz lou^s et qui aont la garantie dea obligations eontraot^ea par aou bail, et 
iju'elle d^lare ne plus pouvoir continuer an engagvmenis k I'avenir pour 1» 
reate de I'ann^, & aavoir k partir du onie Janvier mil buit cent quatre-vingi- 
troia au premier mai auivant, repr<«aentanC une somme de loyer de la valeur de 
cent cinq piastrea ; que la valeur da I'uaage et occupation dea dita lleux, pour 
le reate de la dite ann^, eat d'au moins cent cinq piaatres, courant; que 
diatraction faite dea effeta enlevds, il n'ea reete pas aufBaamment pour gara'ntir 
le loyer ; que la d^ndereaae a sotivent reconnu devoir et promia pajer oette 
aommede cent cinq p^atreai que la 4^reoderease aerait endett€e envers 1» 
damanderesae CO la dite aomme de cenf%ilf|||ii|||^ tant pour lotempade^:" 
I'oocupatioB dea diU lieuz, en vertu du dit.bail, que J»WiMlMW» f^iultaat 
da fait de la d^fendereaae ; que cette dernidre enldve lea dita effeta et meublep^ 
metiblaBts, en vue de f ra uder l a dem ftnii«riH.«« «t «„ r«« ^ ^ J .fT wt i tr alloniCmtt, 



^ 



lesdiUlieuet qu'elle refuae et_ n^gli|re de payer la dite aomme 4.1o,d«maiw 






' V ';^ ! j ^ 



88A 



COUR DB REVISION, 1883. 



a^MjWIa. dcresse, quoique requise „t que la dem.ndoresse est. en consequence, bien fondle 



. Dame H. 
Souoherie. 



y 



A _^„i„ „• , . • , T ""-""'««""»', cu TOusequence, Dien tbndee 

Ar^clamer lepa.en.entdo cette somme et de .aisir-gager la bien.. n.JL, 

conclut A Umanauon d'un bref de saisie-gagerie et a ee que la d^fende esse soit 

z!::::^^j:r '"' ^"""''^ -^^ "-^ ^^-^'^ ---'• -- 

Attendu que le vingt-ncuf Janvier ™il hnit cent quatre-vingt-trois, la 
de^anderesse a produit une demande .upp^^toire dan. laquelle eUe allegue 
qu elle n a pas r^clam<3, dans la declaration originaire, tout le montant qui lui 
^ a.t da etque la d^fonderesse. aul.eu de lui .tre end^tt^ .n la s6n.n.e de n 

JJiastres pour les causes c.-apres mentionn^es, savoir; outre la dite somme de 

de quarante piastres pour dommages cuus<5s aux meubles de la demaideresse 
1 uds av.c sa ma.son, aux termes du dit bail, et d, plus, en la somme de v gi 
p^^stres pour le compte dugaz dft ^ Ja defend^resse A la compagnie dugaz de 
Mont,,,,, la ddfendercsses'est obligee do payer en vertu du dit ball, ce 

deux dern,6res sommesrdumes.formantsoixantc piastres, qui, jointes. A celle de 
c nt cnq piastres djar^clamde don^ent une somme totale de cent soixante et 
sTpplZlT *'"' " ^^'"'*°^^'-^««' '^«I'""« P»r son action et par sa demande 

^tat/t"'^V"° '^ ''f^fr^^^ « P'«>^e A cette action que la dite action 
^tai vexatoire; que la d^fenderesse deyait rien ii la demandercsse et qu'il y 

pou rdpondre du loyer k ocho.r ; que ft d^fenderesse n'a jamais divesti aucune 

dans le but de faire de la place pour de nouveaux penslonnaires ; que le coraptc 
degaz men lonn, dans la demande suppldtoire de la demanderesso a'dtait pas 

^^ d^mandd a la dc^fendoresse qui a toujoursL prfte a le payer j que depuis 
Emanation de la pr^sente action, la demandeVesse a reju sur'un opposhi^n 
^n de conscrver faUe dans la Gourde CircuiV te montant du dit coTpte de 
ga et un fort montant sur le loyer i>gclame ; que, quant aux dommages que la 
d^lenderesse a,pu fa.re aux effets mobiliers de la demrfnderesse, elle est prfite a 
les payer etq^eces dommages ne s'dlevent pas plus qu'i la somme dequatre 
piastres et qu'.lle depose cinq piastres a cette fih a^ son plaidoyer qt 
d^fenderesse excpe du jugement de cette cour permett^nt d'amender la dLra- 
tM,n demanifireirdclamer pour des dommages lorsque la demande originhire 
^a.t pour loyer, etqueces dommages. s'il ep existe, ont d^ja ^td payl^la 
demanderesse; que dans le mois de ft vrier dernier, la demandere Ja obtenu 
«n jugement contre la d^nderesse, dans une action en expulsion pour la somme 
de trenten^mq piastres de dommages dueen,vertu du dit ball, iVquel montant 
avec d antres montants obtenus par la demanderesse. depuis I'annulation du dit 

tl'T.,^ ft"', r? P"" P°y^'' to"« dommages que la demanderesse 
4) 8 Utr<olum«f^«-]>-<h?fcndereBSB; ^ ««» uwta^ae ^ 



I 



COUR DB REVISION, 1883. 



33t 



Sr ^«'°»°<J«e»9e Prenait wa procid^, en saisio^ogcrie contr. la ^fP^ 

sot™! T"' "T '*7''r '"'' ^'"'"^^''' P" '^«*" ^'^^^^- Oagnon^u a 't?' • 
sornme de soixante et dix-huit piastres et oibquante coDtids et n«'«r,rl- ; ? "••»• «> 

Hues effets dtaient alors sous^iBie par la den.aDdere,8e,en vertu^^^^^^^^^ 

^ pr^sente aouon ; que la-demaaderesse se porta opposante afia d, oontrver bu^ 

le produu de la vente d'iceux ; que I'huissier rapjorta ea cour tZmZZ 

ri err**.*""'* ""'""' """^ ^"^ ''^^"'^'^ — --'^ 4^it : 

p..<8tr^ et quatre-vingtHjuinze centius A I'avooat poursuivant la saisie7ans I 

t 8^xtt!rr ' '*"'' ^'"'"'' ^""-'o-oi-q centinsaux avooats de I'opposante — 
et soixante et dou«e piastres et quutre-vingt-deux centins pour la demandTsse 

dl r '°""'"' '"'"' ''^'' "" "'"■"P*« ''«' — de cr^ances;nuZ^ 
danssonoppcs.t,on;q«eladea.anddhs«, doane credit 41a d^fenderessTdeb 
d.te somme de so.xante ,5t dou«e piastres et quatre-vingt^leox centins one ll 
Wderesse impute d'abord au paiement des frais dans'Ttte eau«, irceux 
d^ A fa.ts que ceux A faire; qu'il est faux que la denianderesse ait id pal d" 
•^UonTdT' T ' "' ■""'•"' •»" PO^^rieurement , n„stit«tl7e cet 
r^ni ?r """ ' r""^^' '• d^fenderesse en ,^«liation du dit bail 
et quelle reclame trent«H,inq piastres pour dommages subsWnts pou dJ» 

»^s d.ff.rente,.et de nature outre que les don,n.ages%.clan.e;*cn e^^^^^^^ 
que le jugement sur cette acUon en r^siliatfon de bail a 6t4 rendu hZul ' 
ftvrier mil huit cent quatre vingt trois.; ' , """*"'««»■« 

Consid^rant qu'il a ^t^ p^uy^ que/bn, de IMmanation de fc saisie^gerie 
6man^ en eette cau|« et lors de restitution de la pr^sente action 3de 

eXd r '»/^^«"'*"-« -»•* -<»« - piano qui .tait I'objet quUvat 
e£u, de yaleur dans sa maison et qui €tait affects du privilege de la demand " 
res^ ; qu elle ava.t en outre vendu un fauteuil de salon -qu'elkavait elTj^ 
tapis, les avait roul^s et mis dans une chambre et qu'i Jarait eTlZ de^ 
preu^qu. la defenderesse^it alo« dfoid^e. comme\lle 1-a d^^r^^^^^ 

fou n.r A la demanderesHe la pension qu'elle s'^tait obligee de lui fournir daoB. « 
le8lieuxlou^s,enpaiementduditloyer; ""rwrqaoB. 

Consid W que les effets qui ont dt^ v'enduB 4 la poursu^te de Gagnon et aui 

^n^tnl^tT r"' '* *""*' P''"*'"' ''«"' ^»^ Po- 1« «>-»« de cent 
^-InClt Tn^Vi, ^r/l"'""' '' •^"^ '• demanderesse, «.us Jes circon^ 
i.t«nc*.tfta,t iust.fiablede faff, ^maner 1. dite saisie^gerie, comme elle 1'. 

^TT!- '^^''VT ^' ^""^^ "" »« «"" trente-sept du Code CiviL ~ - 

atac,sder^hat.ondubailpourquelquefautedulocat.ire,c;dern;eresS ' 
d. payer e loyerjusqu'U-^vacuation des lieux et aussi de dommages intX 



— • — " *~"'' ""^ wjfwa penaant le temps necci 

qu»-pftuM»mie^atre perte remmsMiarriBttS^rait^ 







•332 



COUR DB REVISION, 1883. 



Beaudry 
et Tir. 

T8. 

DttmeH. 
iBoucberie. 



Con8id<Jrant que Ic dit bail a ^t^ rtfsiliiS par la faute de la ddfenderaK, 
locataire commo eusdit, par le jugement ci-dessus mentioDn^ da seis© ftvfflf ' 
dtsmicr etquo la dtfendereose a laiss^ lea Heux loii^s le vingt-trois mars dernier; 
Consid^rant qu'en vertu du dij; article mil six cent trente-aept du Code 
Civil, In (Jdrenderesse est tenue de payer le loyer, H partir da onse Janvier dernier 
.jiisqu'au jour oii. elle a laiss^ ies lieux lou^s, savoir le vingt-trois mars dernier, et 
quo depuis elltf est tenue de payer lea dommages interets resultant de la perte 
des loyers pendant le temps n^cesaaire h la relocakion ; 

CoDsiddrant^qu'i partir du vingt-trois mars dernier jus^u'aa premier mai 
dernier, il n^ a'cst ^cpuW qu'un tnois et quelques jours, et que ce temps n'a pas 
^t^ plus qufli suffisant pour relouer Ies dits licux et que, de fait, oes lieux n'ont 
M6 \oa6a qud le premier mat dernier et ne sont oooup^s que deptils ce temps, et 

' que la d^fertderesse est responsuble de ces donimagef), et que I'aotion de la 

demanderesse pour la dite somme de cent cinq piastres, tant po\ir loyer qaii pour 
dommages, comme susdit, est bien fondle ; 
' Consid^rant que la demanderesse a au;ssi le droit de r^lamer de la d^fen- 
deresse la somme de diz piastres pour dommages causes 4 ses moubles, ce qui 
forme un montant total de cent quince piastres courant, sur laquelle somme la 
demandfcresse a reju par le jugement de distribution sdsdit, le vingt mars dernier, 
la somiue de soizante-et-douze piastres et quatre-yingt-denz centins, laissaht une 
balance revenant & la dite demanderesse de quarante-deaz piastres et diz-hait 
centins; ' . 

Consid^rant que la demanderesse n'a pas pay^ le compte du gaz quielle 

reclame etr qu'elle ne pent obtenir jugement oontre la d^fenderesse pour le 

montant r6clam6 de ce chef, mais qu'en vertu de I'artiole mil neuf cent cinquante- 

». , trois dta Code Civil, elle n'aurait le droit d'agir oontre elle que pour dtre indem- 

%, ,.-■ -ms^e;' 

Considdrant que Taction de la demanderesse est bien fondle pour la dite 
somme de quarante^euk piastres et diz-huit centins, courant ; 

A maintenu et maintient la dite action de la demanderesse et a d^clar^ et 

declare la dite saisie-gagerie bonne et valable', et >a condamn^ et condamno la 

dSfenderesse k payer A la demanderesse la dite somme de quarante-deuz piastres 

et diz-huit centins; courant, avec int^rdt du premier jour de mai dernier 

. >- jusqu'au paiement, et a ordonn^ et ordonne que |^ dits biens meables et effets 

mobiliers saisis en cette cause et qui n'ont pas4|t^ rendus & la poursuite du 

nommS Gagnon, soient rendus euivant la loi, pour ^que la demanderesse soit 

pay^e sur le produit de cette" vente, du montant le sa cr^anoe, en capital, ^ 

intdrSts et frais, et a condamn^ et condamne la d^fenderesse & payer k la deman- 

/ deresse Ies d^pens d'une action de cent quince piastres'qui sont distraits k MM. 

1 , .Lareau & Leboeuf, avocats de la demiinderesse, sur" lesquels d4pens sera toote- 

; foisd^uite une somm^ de Tipgt-deoz [nastrea <tant lea d^pena qui ont ^t^ 

occaaiorinda '4 la d^feifderease par la dite action en ezpukion intent^ dans la 

Oourdo Circuit, le premier ftvrier dem^, dont la demande aurait pii dtre 

jjointe *Ho la detnande en cette cause, 1^ jugement donnaht oomme an de sea , 

-'iconaid^rant^ et un des motifa du dit jagdtnent, le d^tonrnement des meublea 



I- 



■V ■■ ■ ' 



;''■♦' » 



COUR DE REVISION, 18.83! 

^ 



333: 



de r„. t • ^^^'"'^'''''' '" "^'«^'«"«« dc8 frai8 d« contestation entro uno action ^V^ 

de cent qu.ote piastres et «„e action de cent 8oixante..t-ci„q piastres '^l 

ifonA tfe ii!by„M, ttvocats de I'appelante. Jugement confirm^. S^^l^. 

EdmondLareau, avocat de I'iotimde. 



^« 




COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1886.° 

(APPBAL SIDE.) 
MONTREAL, SEPTEMBER 218T, 1886' 

: !1 ^*''"*" ^°'*'^' J- Kamsay, Tessiib, and Cross, J. J. 

' ALBERT NORDHEIMER, IT AL. 

(Phintif* in the Court bdow\ 

- ■' • AND A 

' - . „, APPILLAhT): 

OMVIER LECLAiRB, IT AL. 

. Th